,1  \\u  lfeeo%fa^  ^ 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


/  /  BX  9841  .E4  1877 

Eliot,  William  Greenleaf, 

1811-1887. 

^/5i^^. Discourses  on  the  doctrine 

of  Christian-i.tv,  .  —- - 


DISCO^tf'l^'^'ES 


'•^^u^         '^; 


V-G. 


DOCTRINES  OF  CHRISTIANITY. 


BY 


WILLIAIM  G.  ELIOT 

PASTOB  OF  THE  CHURCH   OF  THK  MESSIAH,  ST.  LOUIS. 


TWENTIETH    THOUSAND, 


.      :^  O  STON: 
AMERICAN    UNITARIAN    ASSOCIATION 

1877. 


CONTENTS. 


>5<«c 


rSTRODUCTORy   ADDRESS B 

UNITY   OF   GOD 9 

THE    HOLY    SPIRIT 27 

OUR   LORD   JESUS    CHRIST 39 

OUR   LORD   JESUS    OHKltif    .......  58 

ARGUMENT   FROM   HISTORY 83 

THE   ATONEMENT s         .          .  101 

THE  ATONEMENT 113 

REGENERATION       .         , 127 

EETRIBUTION      . •  141 


NOTE. 

Short,  simple,  clear  expositions  of  Christian  doctrine, 
breathing  a  spirit  of  enlarged  charity  and  devout  reverence 
for  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  are  always  needed  and  always 
useful.  The  following  Tract  is  the  first  of  a  series  of  dis- 
courses of  this  character  recently  prepared  by  the  Rev. 
William  G.  Eliot  of  St.  Louis,  and  preached  to  his  own 
society  in  that  city.  The  Executive  Committee  of  the 
American  Unitarian  Association  propose  to  republish  the 
whole  series  m  separate  tracts,  for  distribution  among  their 
subscribers,  and  in  such  form  that,  when  complete,  the 
series  will  make  a  small,  but  interesting  and  useful,  volume 
for  general  circulation. 


INTRODUCTORY    ADDRESS. 


There  are  two  popular  errors  concerning  Unitanans,  aa 
a  body  of  believers,  which  I  am  desirous  of  removing  from 
the  minds  of  all  who  read  this  book.  First,  it  is  supposed 
that  we  deny  the  existence  of  Mystery  in  religion,  and  that 
we  refuse  to  receive  any  doctrine  which  we  cannot  perfect- 
ly understand.  I  should  doubt  if  human  presumption  ever 
went  so  far,  if  I  had  not  read  somewhere  the  words  of  a 
philosophical  believer,  who  said,  "  Where  Mystery  begins, 
Religion  ends."  In  all  departments  of  human  inquiry  we 
find  mystery,  that  is,  something  hidden  from  us  and  beyond 
our  present  reach,  and  it  would  be  strange  if  religion  were 
an  exception  to  the  general  rulf,.  All  the  subjects  of  which 
it  treats  are,  by  their  nature,  beyond  our  perfect  compre- 
hension. We  may  learn  something  of  them,  we  may  ob- 
tain glimmerings  of  the  infinite  truth,  enough  for  present 
guidance  and  comfort  and  encouragement,  and  that  is  all. 
God,  Eternity,  Immortality,  Redemption,  Accountability, 
Judgment,  —  what  infinite  verities  do  these  words  convey, 
yet  how  completely  are  we  overwhelmed  in  their  contem- 
plation !  There  is  not  one  of  them  that  we  can  perfectly 
explain.  Our  own  souls  are  an  unfathomable  mystery  to 
us,  and  how  can  we  expect  to  comprehend  the  nature  of 
1* 


b  INTRODUCTORY    ADDRESS. 

God  aiid  of  Christ,  and  all  the  secrets  of  the  spiritual  world 
of  which  we  form  a  part  ?  We  have  no  such  expectation 
and  make  no  such  promise.  We  come  to  the  study  of  re- 
ligious subjects  with  reverential  feelings,  hoping  to  learn 
enough  for  our  salvation,  not  expecting  to  know  all.  But 
what  is  distinctly  revealed  we  do  expect  to  know,  and  as 
far  as  we  receive  distinct  ideas  we  expect  them  to  be  con- 
sistent with  each  other.  Mystery  and  contradiction  are  very 
different  things.  The  former  is  something  beyond  our  sight, 
or  seen  imperfectly.  The  latter  is  plainly  seen  to  be  un- 
true. It  may  concern  subjects  of  which  we  know  very  little, 
but  of  every  subject  we  know  enough  to  see  that  two  con- 
tradictory statements  cannot  both  be  true.  We  know  very 
little,  for  example,  about  electricity  ;  but  if  any  one  were 
to  say  that  it  is  a  self-moving  and  independent  power,  and 
also  an  agent  which  never  moves  except  by  our  will,  w« 
should  answer,  that,  although  the  subject  is  one  enveloped 
in  mystery,  the  statement  concerning  it  is  manifestly  false. 
Applying  this  to  religious  things  :  The  union  between  God 
and  Christ  is  a  subject  beyond  our  perfect  comprehension 
—  it  is  therefore  a  mystery  ;  but  as  Christ  has  declared  thai 
he  could  "  do  nothing  of  himself,"  —  that  he  "  spake  not  of 
himself,"  but  only  "  as  the  Father  gave  him  command- 
ment," —  we  are  prepared  to  see  that  those  who  assert  that 
he  was  equal  with  the  Father,  and  independent  in  his  au 
thority,  are  in  error.  The  subject  is  mysterious,  but  the 
contradiction  is  plain.  So  when  Christ  asserts  that  he  did 
not  know  of  a  certain  future  event  (see  Mark  xiii.  32),  the 
assertion  that  he  was  nevertheless  Omniscient,  is  evidently 
a  denial  of  what  he  said.  The  limits  of  his  knowledge  we 
cannot  define,  but  he  plainly  asserts  that  some  limits  do 
exist,  which  is  a  distinct  denial  of  Omniscience. 

The  second  error  concerning  us  is  of  a  like  kind.     Tt  is 


liSTRODUC'TORY    ADDRESS.  7 

of\en  said  that  we  set  Reason  in  opposition  to  Revelation, 
or  above  it,  and  that  therefore  we  do  not  come  to  Scripture 
with  a  teachable  spirit.  This  is  not  true,  nor  is  any  thing 
like  it  true.  We  do  indeed  think  that  the  Unitarian  system 
of  Christianity  is  more  rational  than  what  is  commonly 
called  Orthodoxy  at  the  present  day,  and  this  is  one  argu- 
ment for  its  truth  ;  for,  as  Reason  and  Revelation  are  both 
of  them  God's  work,  there  cannot  be  any  real  opposition 
between  them.  If  we  are  sure  of  any  doctrine  that  it  is  ir- 
rational or  self-contradictory,  we  may  be  equally  sure  that 
it  is  not  a  revealed  truth.  Revelation  may  tell  us  a  great 
many  things  which  are  beyond  our  discovery,  and  which 
we  can  but  imperfectly  understand  ;  as  when  it  tells  us  that 
God  answers  prayer,  or  that  "  he  works  within  us  both  to 
will  and  to  do  of  his  good  pleasure."  It  makes  us  feel  that 
the  Truth  is  above  us^  and  that,  however  earnestly  we  may 
reach  upwards,  we  cannot  perfectly  attain  it.  But  at  the 
same  time  it  develops,  enlarges,  and  strengthens  our  ra- 
tional nature,  while  commanding  us  to  believe.  Christian- 
ity never  tells  us  to  stop  thinking,  but  to  "  prove  all  things 
and  hold  fast  what  is  good."  We  are  not  commanded  to 
receive  any  doctrine  without  inquiry,  but  to  "  search  the 
Scriptures  daily  to  see  "  what  is  true,  and  of  ourselves  "  to 
judge  what  is  right."  We  ask  no  charter  of  freedom  greater 
than  this ;  but  this  charter  we  do  claim,  not  only  as  rational 
beings,  but  as  Christians. 

The  outcry  against  reason,  made  by  many  religionists,  is 
not  only  unwise,  but  inconsistent  with  their  own  practice  ; 
nor  are  there  any  Christians  who  adhere  more  closely  to 
the  plain  and  direct  meaning  of  the  Bible  than  Unitarians. 
The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  nowhere  plainly  taught  in 
Scripture,  nor  can  it  be  stated  in  Scripture  words  ;  it  is  a 
doctrine  of  inference^  built  up  by  arguments,  and  depend- 


H  INTRODUCTORY   ADrRESS. 

mg  upon  distinctions  so  nice  and  difficult  that  it  requiires  a 
good  deal  of  metaphysical  acuteness  to  perceive  them.  A 
crusade  against  reason  comes  with  ill  grace  from  those  who 
use  it  so  freely.  There  is  no  such  doctrine  in  the  Unitarian 
system,  but  it  would  be  puerile  to  deny  that  reason  is  used 
m  our  religious  researches.  We  become  Christians  only 
by  its  use.  There  is  no  other  means  by  which  we  can 
guard  ourselves  from  gross  superstition.  We  cannot  use  it 
too  freely  or  too  much,  so  long  as  we  use  it  reverently  and 
with  prayer. 

It  only  remains  to  say,  that  the  following  Sermons  were 
delivered  in  the  Church  of  the  Messiah  soon  after  its  dedi- 
cation. They  were  not  prepared  as  controversial  discourses, 
and  do  not  pretend  to  be  a  complete  discussion  of  the  sub- 
jects introduced.  In  their  preparation  I  must  acknowledge 
my  great  indebtedness  to  two  works,  "  Concessions  of  Trin- 
itarians," and  "  Illustrations  of  Unitarianism,"  by  that  inge- 
nious and  learned  man,  John  Wilson,  of  Boston,  formerly 
of  England.  To  his  industry  I  am  indebted  for  a  great 
part  of  my  quotations  from  Triritarian  writers. 

W.  G.  E. 

St.  Louis,  April  10,  1852, 


UNITY  01  GOD. 


AND  JEHOVAH  SHALL  BE  KING  OVER  ALL  THE  EARTH  t  IN  THAT 
DAY  THERE  SHALL  BE  ONE  JEHOVAH,  AND  HIS  NAME  ONE. —  Zcch. 
xiv.  9. 

THIS  IS  LIFE  ETERNAL,  THAT  THEY  MIGHT  KNOW  THEE,  THB 
ONLY  TRUE  GOD,  AND  JESUS  CHRIST  WHOM  THOU  HAST  SENT. — 

John  xvii.  3. 

1  HAVE  selected  the  first  of  these  two  passages,  because 
it  not  only  contains  the  belief  of  the  prophet  in  the  Unity 
of  God,  but  it  is  also  a  prophecy  that,  in  the  Messiah's  time, 
the  same  doctrine  should  be  more  fully  established  :  for  he 
says,  "  In  that  day  there  shall  be  One  Jehovah,  and  his 
name  One,"  —  words  which  convey  the  idea  of  absolute 
Unity  as  strongly  as  any  words  can. 

The  second  passage  contains  the  words  of  Christ  himself, 
and  declares  with  equal  plainness  the  same  doctrine.  They 
are  words  spoken  in  prayer.  "  These  words  spake  Jesus, 
and  lifted  up  his  eyes  to  heaven,  and  said,  Father,  the  hour 
is  come  ;  glorify  thy  Son,  that  thy  Son  also  may  glorify 
thee  ;  as  thou  hast  given  him  power  over  all  flesh,  that  he 
should  give  eternal  life  to  as  many  as  thou  hast  given  him. 
And  this  is  life  eternal,  that  they  may  know  thee,  the  only 
true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hast  sent." 


10  UNITY    OF    SOD. 

When  we  consider  that  these  are  words  of  a  prayer  of- 
fered by  Christ  himself,  —  when  we  look  at  their  great  ex- 
plicitness,  at  the  distinction  which  they  make  between  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  at  the  emphasis  with  which  they  de- 
clare the  Father's  supremacy,  —  we  see  how  important 
they  are  in  the  controversy  between  the  Unitarian  and  Trin- 
itarian believer.  For  the  act  of  prayer  is  in  itself  an  ad- 
mission of  supremacy  ;  and  when,  in  that  prayer,  we  find 
the  distinct  assertion  that  the  Father  is  the  only  true  God, 
by  whom  Jesus  Christ  was  sent,  there  seems  to  be  nothing 
else  needed  for  the  final  and  conclusive  argument.  If  we 
try  to  imagine  some  method  in  which  Christ  could  have  put 
the  controversy  at  rest,  I  think  we  could  find  none  less  open 
to  objection  than  this.  If  such  words,  under  such  circum- 
stances, can  be  explained  away,  it  would  be  in  vain  to  seek 
for  others  which  will  stand. 

Having  such  authority  to  rest  upon,  we  begm  our  inquiry 
this  evening.  My  subject  is  the  Unity  of  God,  and  I  shall 
attempt  to  prove  that  it  is  the  doctrine  both  of  the  Old  Tes 
tament  and  the  New.  But  as  all  Christians  receive  this 
doctrine  in  some  form,  it  is  necessary  to  state  more  expli- 
citly the  position  we  desire  to  establish.  When  we  speak 
of  the  Unity  of  God,  we  take  the  word  in  its  common  mean- 
ing ;  we  mean  simple,  absolute,  undivided  unity.  We  mean 
that  God  is  one  being,  one  person,  one  Infinite  and  almighty 
Jehovah,  the  Creator  and  Upholder  of  all  things.  We  do 
not  pretend  to  understand  the  nature  of  God  perfectly 
Both  in  his  being  and  in  his  attributes  he  is  far  above  our 
comprehension.  But  we  find  no  sufiicient  authority  in  the 
Scripture  for  increasing  the  difficulty,  by  dividing  the  unity 
of  his  being  into  a  trinity  of  persons  ;  a  distinction  which  is 
beyond  our  clear  conception,  und  which  seems  to  us  to  \ei.d 
to  hopeless  contradiction  :  for  by  each  person  we  must  un- 


UNITY   OF    GOD.  11 

derstand  one  who  has  existence,  consciousness,  will,  and 
attributes  of  his  own,  and  this  is  also  the  definition  of  a  sep- 
arate being.  The  more  earnestly  we  seek  to  explain  this 
apparent  contradiction,  that  there  are  three  and  yet  only 
one,  three  persons  but  one  being,  the  greater  the  difficulty 
becomes ;  until  we  must  end,  as  most  persons  do  end,  with 
saying  that  it  is  an  unfathomable  mystery,  in  which  we 
must  believe  without  questioning.  Now  we  distinctly  say, 
that,  if  the  Scripture  is  so,  we  will  try  to  believe  it.  We  do 
not  set  up  our  reason  against  Scripture,  which  is  the  ac- 
knowledged revelation  of  God  ;  but  we  must  use  our  reason 
to  search  the  Scripture  before  we  can  admit  a  doctrine  so 
obscure  and  so  difficult.  We  have  a  right  to  expect  plain 
proof  before  we  can  be  required  to  believe  it.  Upon  this 
basis  we  proceed  to  consider  the  subject. 

The  Unitarian  belief  is,  that  there  is  one  God,  the  Father 
Almighty,  maker  of  heaven  and  earth.  The  Trinitaritwi 
believes  that  there  is  one  God,  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit ; 
that  the  Father  is  God,  that  the  Son  is  God,  and  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  God,  yet  that  there  are  not  three  Gods,  but 
one  God.  Which  of  these  is  the  true  doctrine  ?  You  see 
the  exact  point  of  difference,  and  I  cannot  help  here  saymg 
that  we  have  this  advantage  :  we  can  express  our  whole 
belief  in  unaltered  Bible  language.  We  believe  in  one  God 
the  Father ;  and  the  Apostle  Paul  speaks  with  us  when  he 
says,  "  To  us  there  is  but  one  God,  the  Father,  of  whom  are 
all  things,  and  we  in  him,  and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by 
whom  are  all  things,  and  we  by  him."  (1  Cor.  viii.  6.) 
And  again,  when  he  says,  "  There  is  one  God  and  Father 
of  all,  who  is  above  all  and  through  all  and  in  you  all." 
(Eph.  iv.  6.)  We  say  that  the  Father  alone  is  the  supreme 
God  ;  and  herein  we  have  the  testimony  of  Christ  himself 
in  the  words  of  our  text,  "  that  we  moy  know  thee,  the  only 


V^  UNITY    OF    GOD. 

true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hast  sent."  It  is  vt-ry 
important,  in  the  defence  of  what  we  believe,  to  say  that 
no  similar  statement  of  the  Trinitarian  belief,  concerning 
God,  can  be  made  in  unaltered  Scripture  language.  It 
seems  to  me  almost  fatal  to  that  belief,  because,  being  con- 
fessedly obscure  and  difficult,  its  plain  statement  is  by  so 
much  the  more  desirable,  and,  if  it  were  true,  might  be  con 
fidently  expected  from  those  who  "  declared  the  whole 
counsel  of  God."  It  is  a  very  strong  argument  againsi 
such  a  doctrine,  that  it  cannot  be  expressed  or  explainea 
without  a  departure  from  Scripture  language.  Let  us  turn 
however,  more  carefully  to  the  law  and  the  testimony. 

We  look  first  to  the  Old  Testament,  from  which  our 
argument  is  brief  and  conclusive.  The  great  object  of  that 
dispensation,  under  Moses  and  the  Prophets,  was  to  estab- 
lish the  doctrine  of  God's  Unity. 

When  Moses  was  appointed  the  leader  of  Israel,  he  found 
his  people  buried  in  gross  superstition  and  idolatry.  He 
led  them  forth  from  Egypt  in  the  name  of  the  great  I  am 
the  Jehovah,  the  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob.  He 
instructed  them  in  the  history  of  past  times,  and  for  this 
purpose  the  book  of  Genesis  was  written  :  to  show  that  the  • 
God  in  whose  name  he  spoke  was  the  same  God  by  whom 
the  heavens  and  the  earth  were  created,  by  whom  the 
wickedness  of  men  had  in  times  past  been  punished,  by 
whom  a  part  of  the  human  race  had  been  saved  from  the 
general  destruction,  by  whom  their  ancestors,  Abraham  and 
his  children,  had  been  greatly  blessed,  in  that  land  of  prom- 
ise to  which  he  was  nov/  about  to  lead  them,  and  establish 
^hem  there  as  a  great  people.  When  he  brought  them  to 
the  foot  of  Mount  Sinai  in  the  wilderness,  after  they  had 
been  rescued  by  the  strong  hand  and  outstretched  arm  of 
the  Almighty,  in  the  midst  of  the  fire  and  the  smoke  this 


UNITY    OF    GOD.  13 

eternal  truth  was  spoken:  "Hear,  O  Israel,  Jehovah  thy 
God  is  one  Jehovah."  I  use  the  word  Jehovah,  instead  of 
Lord,  because,  as  you  know,  wherever  the  latter  is  printed 
in  capitals  in  the  Old  Testament  the  original  Hebrew  is 
Jehovah.  Now  this  word  is  derived  from  hayah,  to  be,  and 
means  self-existence  ;  so  that  the  meaning  is,  "  Hear,  O 
Israel,  the  self-existent  one,  thy  God,  is  the  only  self-ex 
istent." 

That  was  the  great  central  doctrine  of  the  Jewish  religion 
They  received  it  slowly  and  unwillingly  ;  it  was  too  grant 
for  their  degraded  minds,  and  they  returned  again  and 
again  to  the  idolatries  of  the  heathen.  For  a  thousand 
years,  their  history  is  a  succession  of  defeats  and  victories 
So  long  as  they  held  fast  to  their  national  belief  in  Jehovah 
as  the  only  God,  they  were  superior  to  all  their  enemies  • 
but  whenever  they  were  corrupted  by  idolatrous  practices 
they  were  shorn  of  their  strength  and  brought  low.     Thus 

continued  through  the  time  of  the  Judges  and  of  the  Kings 
during  which  prophets  were  sent  to  them  from  time  to  time 
to  reiterate  the  one  great  truth,  on  the  preservation  of  which 
their  existence  as  a  nation  depended.  They  declared  it  in 
the  most  emphatic  language  ;  they  enforced  it  by  threats  oi 
the  most  terrible  punishment  if  it  was  forsaken,  and  by  the 
most  glorious  promises  if  it  was  faithfully  adhered  to. 

There  would  be  no  end  to  the  task  if  I  were  to  attempl 
to  give  quotations  in  proof  of  this.  Let  me  offer,  however 
a  few  as  a  sample  :  Deut.  xxxii.  39,  "  See  now  that  I,  even 
I,  am  He,  and  there  is  no  God  with  me  !  I  kill  and  I  make 
alive  "  Isaiah  xliv.  8,  "  Thus  saith  Jehovah :  Beside  me 
there  is  no  God :  is  there  a  God  beside  me  .''  yea,  there  is 
no  God ;  I  know  not  any."  Isaiah  xlv.  5,  and  elsewhere, 
*'  I  am  Jehovah,  and  there  is  none  else.  To  whom  then 
will  ye  liken  God,  or  what  likeness  will  ye  compare  unto 
2 


14  UNITY    OF    GOD. 

him  ;  to  whom  then  will  ye  liken  me,  or  shall  I  be  equal  i 
Kaith  the  Holy  One  ;  for  I  am  God,  and  there  is  none  else 
I  am  God,  and  there  is  none  like  me."  If  it  were  needful, 
we  might  bring  several  hundred  instances  as  strong  and 
conclusive  as  these  ;  but  those  who  are  familiar  with  the 
Old  Testament  will  not  require  it ;  they  will  admit  that  the 
great  labor  of  all  the  prophets,  from  Moses  till  the  time  of 
captivity,  was  to  teach  the  Unity  of  God  and  the  purity  of 
his  worship.  It  is  all  a  commentary  upon  the  words  spoken 
upon  Mount  Sinai,  "  Jehovah,  thy  God,  is  one  Jehovah." 

But  their  instructions  were  almost  in  vain.  The  people 
were  still  corrupted,  again  and  again,  by  the  nations  around, 
until  the  judgments  of  God  came  upon  them  with  more 
dreadful  calamities.  They  were  completely  subdued  and 
carried  into  captivity  by  the  Assyrians  and  Chaldeans. 
There,  in  the  land  of  strangers,  when  their  harps  were  hung 
upon  the  willow,  and  they  remembered  with  sadness  the 
desolation  of  the  temple  of  God,  the  eternal  truth  of  God's 
Unity  was  indelibly  impressed  upon  the  heart  of  the  Jewish 
people  ;  it  was  burnt  in  by  sorrow,  never  again  to  be  erased. 
When  a  small  remnant  returned  to  Palestine,  it  was  as  the 
worshippers  of  one  God,  and  to  them  the  prophet  Zechariah 
spoke,  when  prophesying  of  the  Messiah's  time,  in  the 
ivords  of  our  text,  "  Jehovah  shall  be  king  over  all  the 
«arth  ;  in  that  day  there  shall  be  One  Jehovah,  and  his 
name  One."  The  nation  had  yet  many  calamities  to  en- 
dure, many  vicissitudes  of  fortune  ;  but  among  them  all 
they  never  departed  again  from  the  lesson  which  had  been 
so  severely  learned. 

Such  is  a  general  view  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  is,  I 
think,  decisive  of  the  question  before  us.  If  it  had  been 
intended  by  those  who  spoke  under  the  inspiration  of  God, 
to  convey  some  peculiar  idea  of  unity,  different  from  that 


U.^IITY    OF    GOD.  15 

which  the  word  ordinarily  conveys,  as,  for  example,  a 
Trinity  in  Unity  instead  of  absolute  unity,  would  it  not  have 
been  somewhere  distinctly  expressed  ?  Would  the  chosen 
people  of  God,  whose  special  mission  was  to  teach  the  truth 
concerning  God's  nature,  have  been  left  in  ignorance  of  so 
important  a  doctrine  as  this  ?  Would  it  not  rather  have 
modified  all  the  instructions  of  the  prophets,  and  appeared 
in  all  their  teaching  ?  But  what  hint  do  we  find  of  such  a 
thing  ?  From  Genesis  to  Malachi,  where  do  we  find  a 
single  expression  which  would  convey  to  an  unprejudiced 
mind  such  an  idea  ? 

To  show  how  diligently  the  record  has  been  searched  for 
such  passages,  and  with  what  small  success,  the  words,  "  a. 
threefold  cord  cannot  be  broken,"  and  the  passages  in  which 
the  word  holy  is  repeated  three  times,  as,  "  holy,  holy,  holy 
Lord  God  Almighty,"  have  been  quoted  and  greatly  relied 
upon  by  learned  theologians,  as  a  proof  of  the  Trinity  in 
Unity.  When  such  trifles  are  relied  upon,  it  is  a  tolerably 
good  proof  that  sound  argument  is  wanting.  We  scarcely 
need  to  be  informed  that  the  repetition  of  the  word  "  holy  " 
is  only  an  evidence  of  intense  feeling,  as  when  David  said 
in  his  affliction,  "  0  my  son  Absalom,  my  son,  my  son 
A.bsalom  !  "  or  as  in  the  exclamation  of  Jeremiah,  "  O 
earth,  earth,  earth,  hear  the  word  of  Jehovah !  "  or  as  in 
Rev.  viii.  13,  "  Woe,  woe,  woe  to  the  inhabiters  of  the 
earth  !  "  It  is  just  as  we  would  say  thrice  he  ly  or  thrice 
cursed  ;  conveying  intense  feeling  and  nothing  more. 

We  must  also  refer  to  two  arguments,  which,  although  they 
are  abandoned  by  the  most  learned  Orthodox  critics,  are  still 
insisted  upon  by  many  persons.  The  first  is,  that  the  He- 
brew word  "  Eloheem,"  translated  God,  is  in  the  plural  num- 
ber, indicating,  as  is  supposed,  a  plurality  of  persons  in  the 
<^odhead      Our  answer  to  this  is  the  same  which  is  giver 


16  UNITY    OF    GOD. 

bv  John  Calvin  and  Professor  Stuart,  whose  orthodoxy  will 
not  be  questioned,  and  is  in  these  words :  "  For  the  sake  of 
emphasis,  the  Hebrews  commonly  employed  most  of  the 
words  which  signify  Lord,  God,  &c.,  in  the  plural  form,  bu^ 
with  the  sense  of  the  singular."  In  proof  of  which,  I  refei 
to  Exodus  vii.  1,  where  the  word  god  is  applied  to  Moses, 
"  And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  See,  I  have  made  thee  a 
god  to  Pharaoh."  The  Hebrew  is  here  in  the  plural,  and, 
literally  translated,  would  be  gods.  A  similar  passage  oc- 
curs 1  Sam.  xxviii.  13,  where  the  word  gods,  in  the  plural 
umber,  is  applied  to  Samuel.  In  fact,  this  plural  form  to 
nouns  of  a  singular  number  is  a  common  idiom  in  the  He- 
brew language  where  intensity  of  meaning  is  expressed. 
The  names  of  many  of  the  heathen  idols,  as  of  Baal,  of 
Dagon,  of  Ashtoreth,  Beelzebub,  and  even  of  the  golden  calf 
made  by  Aaron,  Ex.  xxxii.  4,  are  all  in  the  plural  number 
So  in  Gen.  xxiv.  9,  where  it  is  said  the  servant  put  his 
hand  on  the  thigh  of  Abraham  his  master,  the  word  master 
Is  in  the  Hebrew  plural,  that  is,  masters.  The  same  mode 
of  expression  occurs  in  other  places,  of  Potiphar,  of  Pharaoh, 
and  of  Joseph,  all  of  whom  are  spoken  of  in  the  plural  num- 
ber, as  a  token  of  unusual  respect.  I  have  before  me  no 
less  than  fifty  instances,  in  which  words  having  a  singular 
meaning  are  in  the  plural  form,  according  to  the  Hebrew 
usage.  As  in  Prov.  i.  20,  "  Wisdom  crieth  without ;  she 
uttereth  her  voice  in  the  street  "  ;  the  Hebrew  word  for 
wisdom  is  in  the  plural.  In  the  same  manner,  I  can  give 
you  instances  in  which  the  words  salvation,  love,  truth, 
desolation,  death,  pride,  and  many  others,  are  in  the  plural 
form  in  the  Hebrew,  though  translated  in  the  singular. 
These  considerations  are  enough  to  show  that  the  use  of  the 
word  Eloheem  is,  according  to  Professor  Stuart's  explana- 
tion, nothing  but  a  Hebrew  idiom,  upon  which  no  doctrine 
of  a  plurality  of  persons  can  be  built. 


UNITY    OF    GOD.  17 

The  other  argument  to  which  I  refer  is  of  a  similar  sort 
It  is  founded  upon  the  words,  Gen.  1.  26,  "  Let  us  make 
man  in  our  image,  after  our  likeness,"  which  we  also  regard 
as  an  idiomatic  mode  of  expression,  commonly  called  the 
plural  of  excellence  or  of  dignity.  We  can  give  instances 
in  Sacred  Scripture  of  its  use  by  earthly  kings,  by  Jesus 
Christ,  by  the  Apostle  Paul,  and  by  many  others.  In  1 
Thess.  ii.  18  are  these  words :  "  Wherefore  we  would  have 
come  unto  you,  even  I  Paul,  once  and  again,  but  Satan  hin 
dered  us  "  ;  where  the  Apostle  applies  the  pronouns,  we  and 
M5,  to  himself.  We  might  quote  other  passages  showing  the 
same  use  of  the  plural,  but  it  is  not  needful,  as  the  argu- 
ment is  abandoned  by  a  large  part  of  Trinitarian  writers. 
Martin  Luther,  Grotius,  Bishop  Patrick,  Dr.  South,  Dr.  Sam- 
uel Johnson,  Archbishop  Whately,  are  all  good  Orthodox 
authorities,  and  all  of  them  agree  with  us  upon  this  point. 

I  do  not  know  of  any  other  arguments  now  used,  to 
prove  that  a  plurality  of  persons  in  the  Godhead  is  hinted 
at  in  the  Old  Testament.  One  thing,  very  important,  is 
certain,  that,  if  any  such  hints  were  conveyed,  the  Jews 
never  understood  them.  The  presumption  is,  that  they 
knew  their  own  language,  and  it  is  certain  they  understood 
that  the  Unity  of  God  was  taught  by  their  Scriptures  in  the 
most  absolute  and  unqualified  manner.  Such  was  their  in- 
terpretation of  Moses  and  the  Prophets  at  the  time  when 
Christ  came.  In  all  Palestine  there  probably  could  not 
have  been  found  a  single  man  or  woman,  who  supposed  that 
there  was  any  distinction  of  persons,  such  as  is  now  taught, 
in  the  Unity  of  God. 

If,  therefore,  such  a  doctrine  is  contained  in  the  New 

Testament,  it  must  have  been  completely  a  new  revelation 

to  the  Jews  ;  and  not  only  new,  but  also  strange.     At  first 

eight  U  must  have  appeared  to  them  then,  as  it  does  now, 

2* 


18  UNITY    OF    GOD. 

subversive  of  their  ancient  doctrine.  It  would  have  beer 
necessary,  therefore,  for  the  Saviour  and  his  Apostles  to 
state  it  very  plainly,  and  to  prove  its  consistency  with  the 
law  of  Moses.  If  we  find  no  such  statement,  we  may  con- 
clude that  there  was  no  such  doctrine.  Silence,  under 
such  circumstances,  would  be  a  full  consent  to  the  old  Jew- 
ish belief  in  the  Unity  of  God. 

What  shall  we  say,  then,  when  we  find  that  this  doctrine 
is  reaffirmed,  over  and  over  again,  by  Christ  and  his  Apos- 
tles, in  the  strongest  possible  language,  which  is  used  with- 
out any  explanation,  or  any  hint  that  a  peculiar  sense  is  to 
be  attached  to  the  word  One,  when  applied  to  God  >  No 
/  less  than  thirteen  hundred  and  twenty-six  times  is  the  word 
God  used  in  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  without  any 
explanation  to  guard  us  from  what  our  Trinitarian  friends 
would  call  a  fatal  error  upon  this  which  is  the  fundamental 
doctrine  of  religion. 

This  is  a  tolerably  strong  case ;  but  a  more  careful  ex- 
amination will  make  it  still  stronger.  Let  us  look  at  the 
teaching  of  Christ  himself  first,  and  then  of  his  Apostles. 
Christ  uniformly  spoke  of  God  as  his  Father,  and  of  the 
Father  as  the  only  God.  Almost  his  first  recorded  words 
are  these  :  "  Thou  shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  him 
only  shalt  thou  serve."  He  prayed  to  God  as  his  Father, 
and  taught  his  disciples  to  pray  in  the  same  words  :  "  Our 
Father,  who  art  in  heaven."  Upon  one  occasion,  when 
some  one  called  him  "  good  master,"  he  answered,  "  Why 
callest  thou  me  good  ?  there  is  none  good  but  one,  that  is 
God."  Upon  another  occasion,  when  asked  what  was  the 
first  commandment  of  all,  he  commenced  in  the  very  words 
of  the  law  spoken  from  Mt.  Sinai :  "  Hear,  O  Israel :  The 
Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord  ;  and  thou  shalt  love  the  Lord 
thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  all 


UNITY    OF    GOD.  19 

thy  mind,  and  all  thy  strength.  This  is  the  first  and  great 
commandment."  Observe  how  solemn  is  this  affirmation 
of  the  old  doctrine  ;  it  is  a  reenactment  of  the  great  cen- 
tral  law  of  the  Jewish  religion,  without  one  word  of  amend- 
ment or  qualification.     Can  we  ask  any  thing  more  ? 

But  we  have  more,  if  possible.  If  this  were  all,  it  migh 
perhaps  be  argued  that  the  word  "  God  "  includes  the  idea 
of  tri-personality  in  the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit ;  but  the 
Saviour  has  forbidden  such  a  construction  by  teaching  us. 
that  the  God  of  whom  he  spoke  is  the  Father  only.  We 
once  more  refer  to  the  words  of  our  text,  words  of  prayer 
to  the  Father :  "  This  is  life  eternal,  that  they  may  know 
thee  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hast 
sent."  He  speaks  of  himself,  the  Son,  as  a  separate  be- 1/ 
ing,  dependent  on  the  Father.  "  Glorify  thy  Son,  that  thy 
Son  also  may  glorify  thee."  Again,  in  his  prediction  of 
his  heavenly  exaltation  he  says,  "  Hereafter  shall  the  Son  of 
man  sit  on  the  right  hand  of  the  power  of  God."  So  when 
in  the  garden  of  Gethsemane  he  prayed  to  the  Father, 
"  Not  my  will,  but  thine  be  done."  And  on  the  cross,  in 
the  time  of  his  last  agony,  "  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast 
tliou  forsaken  me  ?  "  and  yet  once  more,  after  his  resur- 
rection, he  said  to  his  disciples,  "  1  ascend  unto  my  Father 
and  to  your  Father,  to  my  God  and  to  your  God."  Thus, 
through  his  whole  ministry,  he  used  the  same  uniform  and 
familiar  language.  I  ask  you  again  to  remember  that  this 
language  was  addressed  to  those  who  had  no  conception  of 
any  other  doctrine  than  the  absolute  Unity  of  God.  How 
must  they  have  understood  it  ?  I  think,  just  as  we  under- 
stand it  now,  when  we  say,  "  To  us  there  is  but  one  God, 
even  the  Father." 

The  Saviour's  testimony  is  therefore  the  same  with  that 
of  Moses.     But  although  this  is  admitted  by  many  Trinita- 


20  UNITY    OF    GOD. 

rians,  it  is  said  that  the  revelation  of  tie  new  doctrine  was 
reserved  until  after  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  at  the  day 
of  Pentecost.  Let  us  look  then  at  the  preaching  of  the 
Apostles  at  that  time,  and  subsequently.  We  find  it  to  be 
exactly  the  same ;  the  same  language  is  used  concerning 
God,  without  any  hint  that  it  is  to  be  taken  in  a  peculiar 
sense.  These  are  their  words  :  "  The  God  of  Abraham, 
and  of  Isaac,  and  of  Jacob,  the  God  of  our  fathers,  hath 
glorified  his  son  Jesus,  whom  God  hath  raised  from  the 
dead."  And  again :  "  This  Jesus  hath  God  raised  up. 
Therefore,  being  by  the  right  hand  of  God  exalted,  and 
having  received  of  the  Father  the  promise  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  he  hath  shed  forth  this,  which  ye  now  see  and  hear." 
This  language  is  repeated  in  the  first  six  or  seven  chapters 
of  the  Book  of  Acts,  over  and  over  again  ;  and  God  is  al- 
ways spoken  of  without  any  qualifying  word,  as  the  only 
Supreme  Being,  by  whom  Christ  was  sent,  raised  up,  and 
glorified.  Does  this  look  like  the  revelation  of  a  new  doc- 
trine concerning  God  ? 

In  the  seventeenth  chapter  of  Acts,  Paul  makes  a  distinct 
iJ  declaration  concerning  God.    He  found  an  altar  in  Athens, 

erected  to  the  unknown  God,  and  said,  "  Whom  therefore  ye 
ignorantly  worship,  him  declare  I  unto  you."  Now,  what 
is  this  declaration  ?  "  That  God  who  made  the  world,  and 
all  things  therein,' is  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth  ;  that  in  him 
we  live,  and  move,  and  have  our  being  ;  that  we  are  his 
offspring,  and  that  he  hath  appointed  a  day  in  which  he  will 
judge  the  world  in  righteousness,  by  that  man  whom  he 
hath  ordained  ;  whereof  he  hath  given  assurance,  in  that 
he  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead." 

The  time  would  fail  me,  to  speak  of  all  the  instances  of 
this  kind.  The  Epistles  are  full  of  them.  The  comTnon 
mode  in  w'lich  God  is  there  spoken  of  is,  as  "  the  God  and 


UNITY   OF   GOD.  21 

Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ " ;  as,  for  example,  2  Cor. 
i.  3,  "  Blessed  be  God,  even  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  the  Father  of  mercies,  and  the  God  of  all  comfort." 
Again,  Eph.  iii.  14,  "  I  bow  my  knees  unto  the  Father  ot 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  And,  Phil.  ii.  11,  "That  every 
knee  should  bow,  and  every  tongue  confess  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father."  Observe, 
that  these  passages  not  only  imply  the  supremacy  of  one 
God,  but  they  also  declare  that  this  one  God  is  the  Father 
only.  The  same  God  whom  the  Apostle  elsewhere  calls 
"  the  King  eternal,  immortal,  invisible,  the  only  wise  God, 
who  is  the  blessed  and  only  Potentate,  the  King  of  kings, 
the  Lord  of  lords,  who  only  hath  immortality,  dwelling  in 
the  light  which  no  man  can  approach  unto,  whom  no  man 
hath  seen  nor  can  see,  to  whom  be  honor  and  power  ever- 
lasting." (1  Tim.  vi.  15.)  All  these  are  words  of  the  New 
Testament.  I  ask  you  again.  Could  they  be  made  more  ex- 
plicit ?  If  I,  as  a  Unitarian  minister,  were  to  task  myself 
in  finding  words  to  express  the  perfect  unity  and  absolute 
supremacy  of  God  the  Father,  could  any  words  be  found 
more  conclusive  than  these  ? 

It  appears,  therefore,  that  the  language  of  the  Bible  is 
uniform,  from  first  to  last,  on  this  subject.  Moses  and  the 
Prophets,  Jesus  Christ,  both  before  and  after  his  resurrec- 
tion, and  the  Apostles,  both  before  and  after  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  assert,  in  the  same  unqualified  words,  that  the 
Father  is  the  only  living  and  true  God. 

Upon  what  ground,  then,  are  we  authorized  to  divide  that 
absolute  Unity  ?  Suppose  that  we  were  to  find  two  or  three 
passages  which  seem  to  imply  such  a  division.  Ought  wo 
not  to  explain  them,  if  possible,  in  accoriance  with  the  great 
prevailing  doctrine  .'*  Ought  we,  for  the  sake  of  them,  to 
introduce  inextricable  confusion  into  our  ideas  of  God  ?     I 


22  UNITY   OF   GOD. 

think  not.  When  we  have  so  strong  a  general  case  made 
out,  we  ought  not  to  feel  troubled  by  a  few  difficulties  in 
detail.  The  language  which  we  have  quoted  is  so  plain, 
that  we  cannot  be  mistaken  in  its  meaning.  We  hold  to 
that  plain  meaning,  and  by  doing  so  we  are  Unitarians.  1 
say  this,  not  because  the  difficulties  in  our  way  are  many 
or  great,  but  because  it  is  important  for  the  young  inquirer 
to  take  this  position.  He  ought  not  to  expect  to  explain 
every  text  of  Scripture  to  his  perfect  satisfaction  ;  some 
difficulties  will  still  remain,  but  they  ought  not  to  trouble 
him,  where  the  general  conclusion  is  so  well  established. 
In  the  present  case,  however,  the  remaining  difficulties  are 
few. 

There  are  but  two  texts  of  any  importance  which  are 
supposed  to  imply  the  doctrine  of  a  Trinity.  The  first  is 
the  form  of  baptism  :  "  Go  ye  and  baptize  all  nations  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
tJut  this  teaches  no  Trinity  of  persons,  much  less  of  equal 
persons  in  the  Godhead.  On  the  contrary,  the  use  of  the 
ivord  Son  implies  inferiority.  The  words  mean  that  we 
should  be  baptized  into  faith  in  God  as  our  Father,  in  the 
Son  of  God  as  our  Saviour,  and  in  the  Holy  Spirit  as  the 
guiding  influence  which  proceeds  from  God.  This  com- 
prises the  whole  Christian  faith.  It  is  sometimes  said,  that 
to  be  baptized  in  the  Son  is  a  proof  of  his  deity ;  but  it  is 
not  so  ;  for  Paul  speaks  of  the  Jews  as  having  been  bap- 
jzed  into  Moses.  Nor  does  it  follow,  because  the  three 
ire  spoken  of  together,  that  they  are  equal  to  each  other ; 
for  in  Numb.  xxi.  5,  7,  we  read,  "  The  people  came  to 
Moses  and  said,  We  have  sinned  ;  we  have  spoken  against 
Jehovah  and  against  thee."  And  again,  1  Chron.  xxix.  20, 
**  All  the  congregation  blessed  Jehovah,  God  of  their  fathers, 
and  bowed  down  their  heads,  and  worshipped  Jehovah  and 


UNITY    OF    GOD.  23 

the  king."  And  1  Sam.  xxv.  32,  "  David  said  to  Abigail, 
blessed  be  Jehovah,  God  of  Israel,  who  sent  thee  this  day 
to  meet  me  ;  and  blessed  be  thy  advice,  and  blessed  be 
thou,  who  hast  kept  me  this  day  from  shedding  blood." 
You  will  observe  the  strength  of  this  language.  It  is  an 
ascription  of  praise,  —  first  to  Jehovah,  God  of  Israel,  then 
to  her  advice,  and  then  to  herself.  But  the  ascription  is  to 
be  understood  differently  in  each  case.  So,  when  we  read 
that  they  worshipped  Jehovah  and  the  king,  we  understand 
the  first  as  supreme  worship,  and  the  second  as  the  homage 
of  respect.  In  all  such  cases,  which  are  frequent  in  the 
Bible,  common  sense  saves  us  from  error.  Although  two 
or  three  subjects  are  spoken  of  in  the  same  connection,  it 
does  not  follow  that  they  are  spoken  of  in  the  same  sense, 
much  less  that  they  are  the  same  thing,  or  equal  to  each 
other. 

Nor  does  it  follow  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  person  be- 
cause we  are  baptized  into  its  name.  For,  according  to  a 
common  mode  of  expression  among  the  Jews,  the  name  of 
a  thing  often  meant  the  thing  itself ;  so  the  Rabbins  speak 
of  being  baptized  into  the  name  of  liberty,  and  the  Samari- 
tans circumcised  their  converts  into  the  name  of  Mt.  Geri- 
zim. 

If  you  feel  any  remaining  doubt  as  to  this  passage,  which 
is  regarded  as  the  great  bulwark  of  the  Trinitarian  belief,  I 
can  refer  you  to  a  great  many  Orthodox  authorities  which 
admit  the  interpretation  now  given.  Among  them  are  the 
celebrated  Erasmus,  Dr.  Wardlaw,  Schleusner,  Michaelis, 
and  Professor  Stuart  of  Andover.  They  all  of  them  de- 
clare, that,  although  the  baptismal  form  will  bear  a  Trinita- 
rian meaning,  it  may  also  be  interpreted  different.y  without 
violence  to  the  language 

The   other   text   to  which   I   referred  is  1  John  v.   7 . 


24  UNITY    OF   GOD. 

*'  There  are  three  which  bear  record  in  heaven,  the  Fa 
iher.  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  these  three  are 
one."  Of  which  we  say,  first,  if  we  admit  its  genuine- 
ness, it  affords  no  argument  against  the  doctrine  of  the 
unity.  The  Greek  word  translated  one  is  in  the  neuter 
gender,  and  means,  not  one  being,  but  one  thing ;  which  is, 
according  to  the  use  of  Scripture,  not  identity,  but  agree- 
ment ;  as  when  it  is  said,  "  He  that  soweth  and  he  that 
watereth  are  one  " ;  or  as  the  Saviour  prays  for  his  disci^ 
pies,  "  that  they  all  may  be  one,  as  thou.  Father,  art  in 
me,  and  I  in  thee."  It  is  so  that  the  passage  is  interpreted 
by  Calvin.  He  says  :  "  The  expression  '  these  three  are 
one,'  refers  not  to  essence,  but  to  consent ;  as  if  the  Apostle 
had  said,  the  Father  and  his  eternal  word  and  spirit  harmo- 
niously bear  testimony  to  Christ.  There  is  no  doubt  that 
the  Father,  Word,  and  Spirit  are  called  one  in  the  same 
sense  as  blood,  water,  and  spirit,  in  the  following  verse." 
The  same  explanation  is  given  by  the  celebrated  Beza,  one 
of  the  great  Orthodox  authorities ;  and  McKnight,  the  au- 
thor of  an  Orthodox  commentary,  has  these  words  :  "  It  was 
not  to  John's  purpose  to  speak  here  of  the  unity  of  the  heav- 
enly witnesses,  in  respect  either  of  their  nature  or  of  their 
number.  I  am  therefore  of  opinion,  that,  when  he  wrote 
'  these  three  are  one,"  he  meant  only  that  they  are  one  m 
respect  of  the  agreement  of  their  testimony,  conformably  to 
the  use  of  the  same  phrase  in  other  parts  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament." With  such  authority,  therefore,  as  that  of  Calvm, 
Beza,  and  McKnight  on  our  side,  to  which  I  might  add  tnat 
of  twenty-two  others,  equally  distinguished  as  Trinitarians, 
whose  names  I  have  now  before  me,  we  need  not  hesitate 
to  give  a  Unitarian  explanation  to  this  famous  text. 

Truth  compels  me,  however,  to  add,  that  the  text,  such 
tis  it  is,  is  spurious.     It  has  no  proper  place  in  the  Bible,  o! 


UNITY   OF   GOD.  2ft 

which  we  have  the  following  proof:  —  "  1.  It  is  not  con 
tained  in  any  Greek  manuscript  which  was  written  earlie/ 
than  the  fifteenth  century.  2.  Nor  in  any  Latin  manuscripi 
earlier  than  the  ninth  century.  3.  It  is  not  found  in  any  oi 
the  ancient  versions.  4.  It  is  not  cited  by  any  of  the  Greek 
ecclesiastical  writers,  though,  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  they  have  cited  the  words  both  before  and  after  it. 
5.  It  is  not  cited  by  any  of  the  early  Latin  Fathers,  even 
when  the  subjects  upon  which  they  treat  would  naturally 
have  led  them  to  appeal  to  its  authority.  6.  It  is  first  cited 
by  Vigilius  Tapsensis,  a  Latin  writer  of  no  credit,  in  the 
latter  end  of  the  fifth  century,  and  by  him  it  is  supposed  to 
have  been  forged.  7.  It  has  been  omitted,  as  spurious,  in 
many  editions  of  the  New  Testament,  since  the  Reforma- 
tion ;  in  the  first  two  of  Erasmus  ;  in  those  of  Aldus,  Coli- 
naeus,  Zwinglius,  and  lately  of  Griesbach.  8.  It  was  omit- 
ted by  Luther,  in  his  German  version.  In  the  old  English 
Bibles  of  Henry  the  Eighth,  Edward  the  Sixth,  and  Eliza- 
beth, it  was  printed  in  small  types,  or  included  in  brackets ; 
but  between  the  years  1566  and  1680  it  began  to  be  printed 
as  it  now  stands,  by  whose  authority  is  not  known."  With 
such  evidence  before  him.  Bishop  Lowth  says :  "  We  have 
some  wranglers  in  theology,  sworn  to  follow  their  master, 
who  are  prepared  to  defend  any  thing,  however  absurd, 
should  there  be  occasion.  But  I  believe  there  is  no  one 
among  us,  in  the  least  degree  conversant  with  sacred  criti- 
cism, and  having  the  use  of  his  understanding,  who  would 
be  willing  to  contend  for  the  genuineness  of  the  verse,  1 
John  v.  7." 

You  will  see  upon  how  slender  a  basis  the  doctrine  of  a 

Trinity  rests.     There  is  not  a  single  passage  of  the  Bible  iu 

which  it  is  distinctly  stated,  not  one  in  which  it  is  clearly 

implied.     The  doctrine  of  the  Divine  Unity,  therefore,  re- 

3 


26  UNITY   OF  GOD. 

mains  unimpeached.  It  is  written  all  over  the  Old  and  Ne\» 
Testaments,  just  as  it  is  written  all  over  the  works  of  God 
everywhere  in  the  universe  :  "  Hear,  O  Israel,  Jehovah 
thy  God  is  one  Jehovah."  This  is  life  eternal,  that  we  may 
know  thee  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ,  whom 
thou  hast  sent. 


THE    HOLT    SPIRIT. 


OOD  18  A  SPIRIT.  —  John  iv.  24. 


My  subject  this  evening  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
Last  Sunday  I  attempted  to  show  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
Divine  Unity,  unquahfied  and  undivided,  is  taught  by  the 
Old  Testament  and  New  Testament  Scriptures  ;  that  God 
is  our  Father,  and  that  the  Father  is  the  only  true  God,  — 
the  God  of  Abraham,  of  Isaac,  and  of  Jacob,  and  the  God 
and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the  founda- 
tion on  which  we  rest  our  faith. 

Those  who  impugn  this  doctrine,  or  who  modify  it  by  a 
Trinity  of  persons  in  the  Godhead,  attempt  to  prove  that 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  is  equal  with  the  Father,  and,  in 
some  sense,  the  same  with  the  Father ;  also,  that  the  Spirit 
of  God  has  a  personality  and  attributes,  separate  from  God 
the  Father  and  God  the  Son.  Having  thus  asserted  these 
points  separately,  they  join  them  together,  under  a  modified 
doctrine  of  the  Divine  Unity,  as  a  Trinity  of  persons  in  one 
God.  The  most  important  step  in  their  argument  is  to 
prove  the  Deity  of  Christ,  that  is,  his  equality  or  identity 
with  the  Father,  and  it  might  naturally  be  expected  that  this 
would  form  the  next  subject  of. our  inquiry.     Such  is  the 


28  THE    HOLY    SPIRIT. 

usual  course  ;  but  I  have  two  reasons  for  departing  From  It 
by  taking  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit  first.  In  the  first 
place,  I  think  that  sufficient  prominence  is  not  given  to  this 
doctrine  in  the  Trinitarian  controversy.  It  is  too  often 
taken  for  granted,  or  accepted  with  almost  no  proof.  Trin- 
itarians, if  they  can  satisfy  themselves  of  rjie  Deity  of 
Christ,  consider  that  their  whole  work  is  done.  Very  few 
are  aware  upon  what  slender  proof  the  separate  personality 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  rests.  Very  few  are  aware  of  what  is 
the  fact,  that  this  doctrine  was  not  even  asserted  in  the 
Christian  Church,  nor  made  a  part  of  the  creed,  until  the 
end  of  the  fourth  century,  by  the  Council  of  Constantinople. 
-J  wish  this  to  appear ;  both  that  the  importance  of  the 
doctrine,  and  the  difficulty  of  receiving  it  in  any  other  way 
than  that  in  which  we  receive  it,  may  be  known.  I  wish  it 
to  appear  that  the  Scripture  language  concerning  the  Holy 
Spirit  confirms  our  view  of  the  Unity  ;  that  no  doctrine  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  can  be  found  such  as  is  necessary  to  estab- 
lish the  Trinity.  If  I  can  succeed  in  this,  we  shall  then 
come  to  the  consideration  of  Christ's  nature,  with  a  strong 
presumption  that  our  view  of  him  is  correct ;  for  I  think 
that,  if  it  plainly  appears  that  a  third  person  in  the  Trinity 
cannot  be  proved,  very  few  persons  will  undertake  to  prove 
the  second,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Divine  Unity  will  there- 
fore become  more  impregnable. 

I  take  this  course  also  for  another  reason.  There  is  no 
subject  upon  which  Unitarians  are  more  misrepresented  than 
this  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Because  we  deny  a  separate  per 
sonality,  we  are  thought  to  deny  the  Holy  Spirit  itself,  that 
is,  to  reject  all  belief  in  divine  influences  for  the  regenera- 
tion of  the  heart  and  guidance  of  the  life.  Many  persons 
hold  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  because  they  suppose 
tliat  its  denial  would   involve  an  error  like  this.     They 


THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  29 

shrink  from  the  Unitarian  belief  for  the  same  reason.  They 
feel  the  necessity  of  those  heavenly  influences  which  are 
the  workings  of  the  divine  spirit,  and  from  their  faith  in 
such  influences  their  chief  enjoyment  in  religion  proceeds. 
Shall  they  give  it  up  ?  Even  if  overthrown  in  argument, 
shall  they  yield  all  the  blessedness  of  their  religion  ?  We 
say  no.  If  such  were  the  alternative,  let  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  be  adhered  to,  with  or  without  proof.  The  neces- 
sity of  the  heavenly  influence  which  the  heart  acknowledges 
would  be  proof  enough. 

But  there  is  no  such  alternative.  To  deny  the  person- 
ality of  the  Holy  Spirit,  separate  from  that  of  the  Father,  is 
not  to  deny  the  Holy  Spirit  itself  So  far  as  the  doctrine  is 
a  practical  one,  or  of  any  practical  importance  in  the  for- 
mation of  the  religious  character,  all  Christians  are  agreed 
upon  it.  In  God  we  live  and  move  and  have  our  being. 
He  works  within  us  both  to  will  and  to  do  of  his  good 
pleasure.  He  is  more  ready  to  give  his  Holy  Spirit  to 
those  that  ask  him,  than  an  earthly  parent  is  to  bestow  good 
things  upon  his  children.  But  all  this  is  as  true  to  the  Uni- 
tarian as  to  the  Trinitarian.  Indeed,  it  seems  to  me  more 
true  ;  for  we  believe  that  the  gift  comes  directly  from  a 
Father's  love.  There  is  no  intermediate  doctrine  of  a  third 
person  to  confuse  the  thoughts.  When  we  pray  to  the 
Heavenly  Father,  we  feel  that  we  are  in  living  communion 
with  him  and  he  with  us. 

The  Greek  word  translated  Spirit  in  the  New  Testament 
is  Pneuma,  the  literal  meaning  of  which  is  wind  or  breath. 
The  corresponding  word  in  the  Old  Testament  has  the 
same  meaning.  Both  words  occur  very  frequently  in  this 
sense.  When  applied  to  God,  or  to  any  intelligent  being 
[hey  are  commonly  translated  Spirit,  sometimes  by  the  word 
'^bost,  which,  as  you  know,  had  exactly  the  same  meaning 
3* 


30  THE    HOLY    SPIRIT 

at  the  time  when  the  translation  of  the  Bible  was  made 
To  give  up  the  ghost  is  the  parting  of  the  spirit  from  the 
body,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  is  only  another  name  for  Holy 
Spirit.  The  Greek  or  Hebrew  word  is  exactly  the  same  in 
both  cases.  Now  the  question  in  controversy  is,  What  does 
this  term  Holy  Spirit  mean  according  to  Scripture  usage  ? 
Is  it  a  person  in  the  Godhead  separate  from  the  Father,  or 
is  it  intended  to  express  as  its  general  meaning  the  influ- 
ences which  proceed  from  the  Father  ?  This  question  must 
be  decided  by  a  careful  examination  of  the  Scripture. 

There  are  three  principal  uses  of  the  term  Holy  Spirit 
when  applied  to  God  in  the  Scripture  which  we  must  ex- 
amine. 1.  Sometimes  it  means  God  himself;  2.  Some- 
times the  power,  or  some  other  attribute,  of  God  ;  and  3. 
Sometimes  (which  is  the  most  common  use)  the  varioua 
influences  which  proceed  from  God. 

First :  It  is  sometimes  used  as  another  expression  foi 
God  himself,  just  as  the  spirit  of  man  is  sometimes  used  for 
the  man  himself.  Of  this  we  have  an  instance  in  1  Cor.  ii. 
11,  "  For  what  man  knoweth  the  things  of  a  man,  save  the 
spirit  of  man  which  is  in  him  ?  even  so  the  things  of  God 
knoweth  no  man,  but  the  Spirit  of  God."  As  we  should  not 
think  of  saying  that  the  spirit  of  man  is  here  any  thing  but 
the  man  himself,  so  the  Spirit  of  God  is  God  himself.  So  it 
is  said,  Ps.  cxxxix.  7,  "  Whither  shall  I  go  from  thy  Spirit, 
or  whither  shall  I  flee  from  thy  presence .''  If  I  ascend  up 
into  heaven,  thou  art  there  "  ;  where  the  phrase  "  thy  Spir 
it "  evidently  means  the  same  as  thy  presence,  or  thyself. 
Again,  Isa.  xl.  13,  "  Who  hath  directed  the  Spirit  of  the 
Lord,  or  being  his  counsellor  hath  taught  him  ?  "  where  the 
Spirit  of  the  Lord  evidently  means  the  Lord  himself.  Thia 
IS  in  accordance  with  the  words  of  our  text,  "  God  is  a 
Spirit." 


THE    HOLY    SPIRIT. 


31 


The  only  intelligent  idea  that  we  can  form  of  God  the 
Father  is  of  a  spiritual  being,  or  of  an  infinite  mind,  partly- 
made  manifest  to  us  through  his  wonderful  works.  Just  as 
our  idea  of  a  man  is  chiefly  that  of  a  spirit  or  soul,  which 
for  the  present  is  joined  to  the  body  as  the  means  of  its  de- 
velopment. In  both  cases  the  idea  is  indistinct  and  imper* 
feet.  We  cannot  perfectly  apprehend  the  nature  of  spirit- 
ual existence,  and  in  our  efforts  to  do  so  we  may  easily  be- 
come puzzled.  But  so  far  as  we  have  any  distinct  concep- 
tion of  the  being  of  God  the  Father,  we  think  of  him  as  an 
infinite,  omnipresent  Spirit.  How  much,  then,  is  our  diflli- 
culty  increased,  and  how  hopeless  does  the  confusion  of  oui 
minds  become,  when  we  try  to  think  of  a  Spirit  of  God, 
having  a  personal  existence  separate  from  God  the  Father  I 
For  if  the  Father  is  himself  a  Spirit,  it  is  to  speak  of  the 
Spirit  of  a  Spirit,  and  in  fact  conveys  no  idea  to  the  mind. 
But  if  in  such  cases  we  take  the  Spirit  of  God  as  another 
expression  for  God  himself,  there  is  no  difficulty. 

The  second  use  of  the  term  "  Spirit  of  God  "  is  to  ex-  j 
press  God's  power,  or  some  other  attribute.  When  the 
Saviour  said.  Matt.  xii.  28,  "  If  I  by  the  Spirit  of  God  cast 
out  devils,"  he  meant  by  the  power  of  God ;  as  we  find  in 
the  corresponding  passage  by  another  Evangelist,  Luke  xi. 
20,  "  If  I  by  the  finger  of  God  cast  out  devils  "  ;  in  both 
cajes  meaning  exactly  the  same.  So  in  Luke  i.  35,  "  Tho 
Holy  Spirit  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the 
Highest  shall  overshadow  thee,"  the  exercise  of  the  Divine 
power  is  intended. 

Such  modes  of  expression  are  quite  common  in  the  Bi* 
ble.  They  are  intended  simply  to  express  the  exertion  of 
God's  power.  Whatever  God  himself  does,  he  is  said  to 
do  by  his  spirit,  or  by  his  word,  or  by  his  hand,  or  by  the 
breath  of  his  mouth ;  all  of  which  means  substantially  the 


N 


32 


THE    HOLt     S1»IRIT- 


same  thing.  See,  for  example,  Job  xxvi.  12,  **  He  divid- 
eth  the  sea  with  his  power ^  and  by  his  understanding  he 
smiteth  through  the  proud.  By  his  Spirit  he  hath  gar- 
nished the  heavens ;  his  hand  hath  formed  the  crooked  ser 
pent."  Or  in  Ps.  xxxiii.  6,  "  By  the  word  of  Jehovah  Mrere 
the  heavens  made,  and  all  the  hosts  of  them  by  the  breath 
or  Spirit  of  his  mouth ;  he  spake  and  it  was  done,  he  com- 
manded and  it  stood  fast."  All  such  language  is  perfectly 
intelligible  if  we  receive  it  as  different  modes  of  expressing 
the  exercise  of  God's  power  and  wisdom ;  but  if  in  such 
language  we  try  to  find  evidence  that  the  Spirit  of  God  is 
a  person  separate  from  God  the  Father,  it  all  becomes  ob- 
scure. We  might  as  well  attribute  personality  to  the  Fin- 
ger or  the  Hand  of  God.  Here  also,  as  before,  the  natural 
use  of  language  leads  us  to  the  more  intelligible  doctrine. 

There  is  one  other  principal  use  of  the  term  Holy  Spirit, 
to  which  I  have  referred.  It  is  that  which  means  the  Holv 
Influence  of  the  Deity  on  the  minds  of  his  servants,  with 
the  accompanying  gifts  and  powers.  This  is  by  far  the 
most  common  use  of  the  term  in  the  Bible,  —  perhaps  in 
nine  cases  out  of  ten  where  it  occurs.  It  is  a  use  which 
fonfirms  our  view  of  the  doctrine  in  dispute,  and  I  think  is 
inconsistent  with  any  other.  While  I  read  a  few  of  the 
passages,  I  would  ask  your  close  attention,  that  you  may 
decide  for  yourselves  upon  this  point,  to  which  doctrine 
the  language  is  most  favorable.  The  Scripture  says,  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  was  "  put  within  "  Moses  ;  that  the  spirit  of 
the  Jjord  was  "  put  upon  "  the  proj^  hets,  and  other  inspired 
persons ;  that  the  spirit  of  the  Lord  ^*  fell  upon  "  Ezekiel ; 
that  to  the  Apostles  the  Holy  Spirit  was  "  partially  given," 
but  that  to  Christ  it  was  "  given  without  measure  " ;  that 
Jiey  "  received  "  the  Holy  Spirit ;  they  were  "  baptized  ' 
with  the  H0I3'  Spirit  and  with  fire  ;  they  were  "  supplied  " 


THE   HOLT   SPIRIT. 


33 


with  the  spirit  of  Christ,  and  were  made  "  partakers  "  of  it 
The  Holy  Spirit,  or  Spirit  of  God,  was  "  poured  out "  or 
"  shed  forth  "  both  on  Jews  and  Gentiles.  Believers  were 
"  sealed  "  'with  the  Holy  Spirit  of  promise.  Jesus  "  breathed 
on  them,"  and  said,  "  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Spirit."  In 
Luke  xi.  13  it  is  said,  "  How  much  more  shall  the  Heav- 
enly Father  give  the  Holy  Spirit  to  those  that  ask  him  " ; 
and  in  the  parallel  passage,  Matt.  vii.  11,  the  words  are, 
"  How  much  more  shall  your  Heavenly  Father  give  good 
things  to  them  that  ask  him  "  ;  so  that  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
this  case  is  the  same  with  the  "  good  things,"  or  the  spirit- 
ual blessings,  promised.  We  are  taught  to  "  walk  in  "  the 
spirit,  and  that  the  "  fruit  of  the  spirit"  is  love,  joy,  peace, 
long-suffering,  and  the  like. 

There  are  two  instances  in  which  the  descent  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  was  accompanied  by  a  visible  demonstration.  Both 
of  them  are  referred  to  as  a  proof  of  the  personality  of  the 
Spirit  of  God,  separate  from  the  Father.  They  are  un- 
doubtedly the  strongest  instances  to  that  effect  which  can 
be  alleged.  The  first  of  them  is  at  the  baptism  of  Jesus, 
and  the  second  at  the  day  of  Pentecost.  In  the  former,  it 
is  said  that  "  the  Spirit  of  God  descended  like  a  dove,  light- 
ing upon  Jesus,  and  a  voice  came  from  heaven  saying, 
*  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  lam  well  pleased.'  "  It 
was  an  outward  token  of  God's  approbation ;  the  visible  ap- 
pointment of  Christ  as  the  Messiah.  It  was  to  this  that  the 
Apostle  referred  when  he  said,  speaking  of  this  very  inci- 
dent, "  That  God  anointed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  with  power."  Acts  x.  38.  Observe  that  ex- 
pression, which  is  used  as  descriptive  of  Christ's  baptism  : 
"  That  God  anointed  him  with  the  Holy  Spirit."  Is  it  not 
perfectly  inapplicable  to  the  idea  of  separate  personality  } 

The  other  instance  is  at  the  day  of  Pentecost,  of  which 


34  THE    HOLY    SPIRIT. 

we  find  similar  language  used.  The  event  is  described  by 
Peter  as  the  pouring  out  of  God's  Spirit,  and  he  declares 
that  "Jesus,  being  by  the  right  hand  of  God  exalted,  and 
having  received  of  the  Father  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Spir- 
it, had  shed  forth  that  which  was  seen  and  heard."  And 
he  exhorts  his  hearers  to  "  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  the  promise  of  which  had  been  made  to  them." 
i^ou  will  observe  how  strongly  all  this  language  confirms 
the  view  which  we  take  of  the  doctrine,  and  how  difficult  to 
be  reconciled  with  any  other. 

These,  therefore,  are  the  three  meanings  which  belong 
to  the  "  Holy  Spirit,"  according  to  Scripture  usage  :  1.  It 
is  sometimes  only  another  expression  for  God  himself,  as 
the  spirit  of  man  is  another  expression,  in  some  instances, 
for  the  man  himself.  2.  Sometimes  it  expresses  the  power 
of  God,  or  some  other  attribute  ;  as  when  we  read,  "  By 
his  Spirit  he  hath  garnished  the  heavens."  3.  Sometimes, 
which  is  the  most  common  use,  it  means  the  spiritual  bless- 
ings, or  influences,  or  good  things,  which  the  Heavenly  Fa- 
ther bestows  upon  those  who  ask  him.  We  have  no  hesita- 
tion in  asserting  most  positively,  that  there  is  no  passage  in 
the  Bible  in  which  the  words  may  not  be  explained  under 
one  of  these  meanings.  There  is  no  passage  in  the  Bible 
where  the  Holy  Spirit  is  spoken  of  as  a  Self-existent,  Al- 
mighty, or  Omnipresent  Person,  distinct  from  the  God  and 
Father  of  Jesus  Christ.  But,  on  the  contrary,  the  language 
is  generally  such  that  it  cannot  be  spoken  of  a  person  at  all 
but  must  mean  the  influences  which  proceed  from  God  th€ 
Father. 

Upon  what  ground,  then,  are  we  required  to  renounce 
our  belief  in  the  Unity  of  God,  or,  at  least,  to  modify  it  by 
the  admission  of  a  third  person  in  the  Godhead  .''  The  argu* 
ments  are  so  few,  that  it  will  not  take  long  to  answer  them 


THE    HOLY    SPIRIT. 


35 


I  have  already  given  the  meaning  of  the  words  used  in 
Daptisni,  Matt.  XAviii.  19,  as  expressing  our  belief  in  God  as 
our  Father,  in  Christ  as  our  Redeemer,  and  in  the  Holy 
Spirit  as  the  sanctifying  influence  which  comes  from  God. 

The  only  other  text  to  which  I  need  refer  is  found  Rom. 
viii.  26  :  "  Likewise  the  Spirit  also  helpeth  our  infirmities  j 
for  we  know  not  what  we  should  pray  for  as  we  ought,  but 
the  Spirit  itself  maketh  intercession  for  us,  with  groanings 
which  cannot  be  uttered  ;  and  he  that  searcheth  the  hearts 
knoweth  the  mind  of  the  Spirit,  because  it  maketh  interces- 
sion for  the  saints,  according  to  the  will  of  God."  "  It  is 
surprising,"  says  Mr.  Peabody,  "  that  this  text  should  ever 
have  been  quoted  as  favoring  the  idea  of  the  supreme  inde- 
pendent divinity  of  a  Spirit,  which  intercedes^  that  is,  offers 
prayer,  of  course  to  some  superior  being."  It  is  one  of 
those  texts  which  are  difficult  to  explain,  word  for  word, 
but  of  which  the  whole  meaning  is  perfectly  evident.  The 
idea  of  the  passage  is,  that  "  the  devout  soul,  in  all  its  in- 
firmity and  ignorance,  will  still  be  sustained,  for  it  will  still 
press  to  the  mercy-seat ;  and  that  if  it  knows  not  what  to 
ask  for,  and  cannot  shape  its  own  supplications,  God,  know- 
ing the  earnestness  and  rectitude  of  its  desires,  will  satisfy 
all  its  real  wants." 

The  principal  argument  for  the  separate  personality  of 
the  Spirit  is  found  in  the  four  passages  which  I  have  read 
to  you  this  evening  from  John  xiv.,  xv.,  and  xvi.,  in  which 
the  divine  influences  promised  by  Christ  to  his  disciples  are 
personified  under  the  name  of  the  Comforter.  I  think  that 
if  it  can  be  shown  that  this  personification  does  not,  accord- 
ing to  common  Scripture  usage,  imply  literal  personality, 
very  little  argument  will  be  left. 

What  is  the  Scripture  usage  in  this  respect }  A  brief 
examination  will  show  us  that  no  mode  of  expression  is 


56 


THE    HOLY    SPIRIT. 


more  common  than  that  in  which  inanimate  objects  and 
qualities  are  spoken  of  as  if  they  were  living  beings,  having 
personal  properties  and  performing  personal  actions.  Thus, 
"  the  sea  and  the  mountains  are  represented  as  having 
eyes  ;  the  earth  as  having  ears  ;  a  song,  a  stone,  an  altar, 
water,  and  blood,  the  rust  of  gold  and  silver,  are  spoken  of 
as  witnesses.  The  sword  and  arm  of  Jehovah  are  addressed 
as  individuals,  capable  of  being  roused  from  sleep.  The 
ear,  the  eye,  and  the  foot,  the  law,  righteousness,  and  the 
blood  of  sprinkling,  are  exhibited  as  speakers ;  and  destruc- 
tion and  death,  as  saying  that  they  had  heard  with  their 
ears.  In  the  language  of  Holy  Writ,  the  sun  rejoiceth  and 
knoweth  his  going  down  ;  the  deep  lifts  up  his  hands,  and 
utters  his  voice  ;  the  mountains  skip  like  rams,  the  little 
hills  like  lambs ;  wisdom  and  understanding  cry  aloud,  and 
put  forth  their  voice  ;  the  heart  and  the  flesh  of  the  prophet 
cry  out  for  the  living  God.  The  Scripture  is  a  seer  and 
preacher  ;  the  word  of  Jesus  is  a  judge  ;  nature,  the  heav- 
ens, the  earth,  are  teachers.  God's  testimonies  are  coun- 
sellors, his  rod  and  staff  are  comforters  ;  the  light  and  the 
truth,  and  the  commandments  of  God,  are  leaders  or  guides. 
Sin  is  described  as  a  master,  and  death  as  a  king  and  an 
enemy.  Flesh  and  the  mind  are  treated  of  as  having  a 
will ;  fear  and  anger,  mercy,  light,  and  truth,  the  word 
and  commandments  of  God,  are  exhibited  as  messengers. 
Charity  is  represented  as  in  possession  of  all  the  graces  and 
virtues  of  the  Christian  character."  * 

Such  is  the  usage  of  Scripture.  It  is  so  common  that  I 
may  almost  call  it  universal.  Some  of  the  instances  to 
which  I  have  now  referred  are  also  much  stronger  as  per- 
sonifications than  that  in  which  the  Holy  Spirit  is  personified 

*  Wilson's  Illufctrations. 


THE    HOLY    SPIRIT. 


37 


as  tlie  Cjmforter.  For  instance,  if  you  will  read  the  thir- 
teenth chapter  of  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  you 
will  find  that  charity  is  spoken  of  as  a  living  person,  who 
**  suffereth  long  and  is  kind,  who  envieth  not,  who  seeketh 
not  her  own,  is  not  easily  provoked,  thinketh  no  evil,  re- 
joiceth  not  in  iniquity,  but  rejoiceth  in  the  truth,  beareth  all 
things,  believeth  all  things,  hopeth  all  things,  endureth  all 
things."  I  refer  you  also  particularly  to  the  ninth  chapter 
of  the  book  of  Proverbs. 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  personification  is  a  very  com- 
mon figure  of  speech  in  the  Scripture,  and  we  are  perfectly 
justified  in  this  mode  of  interpreting  those  passages  in  which 
the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit  are  called  a  Comforter. 
We  can  fully  account  for  the  language,  without  the  neces- 
sity of  supposing  literal  personality  ;  and  we  are  confirmed 
m  this  view,  because  we  find  that  the  Apostles  regarded  the 
"  shedding  abroad  "  of  the  divine  influences  at  the  day  of 
Pentecost  as  a  fulfilment  of  the  Saviour's  promise.  (Acta 
ii.  33.)  These  influences  were  to  them  "  the  Comforter,'* 
which  brought  all  things  to  their  remembrance,  and  quali' 
fied  them  to  be  the  ministers  of  Christ. 

It  may  perhaps  still  further  confirm  us  in  this  view  of 
the  language,  that,  even  if  we  should  admit  that  the  Com- 
forter is  a  literal  person,  he  is  evidently  not  upon  an  equal- 
ity with  the  Father  or  the  Son ;  for  he  is  given  by  the  Fa- 
ther, he  is  sent  by  the  Son,  he  is  to  speak  only  what  he  shall 
hear,  he  shall  receive  of  Christ  whatever  he  teaches ;  all  of 
which  expressions  imply  inferiority.  And  accordingly  it  is 
a  fact  in  the  history  of  the  Church,  that,  for  two  hundred 
years  after  the  personality  of  the  Spirit  was  taught,  his  in- 
feriority to  the  Father  and  to  the  Son  was  universally  ad- 
mitted. 

We  feel  justified,  therefore,  in  rejecting  the  doctrine  of 
4 


38 


THE    HOLY    SPIRIT. 


the  personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  third  Person  in  the 
Godhead.  The  Scriptures  do  not  teach  it,  but  just  the  con- 
trary. We  reject  it  as  a  human  device,  by  which  great 
confusion  is  introduced  into  our  ideas  concerning  God,  and 
which  is  of  no  practical  utility.  Let  me  again  say,  how- 
ever, that  we  do  not  reject  the  true  and  Scriptural  idea  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  We  believe  in  the  reality  and  necessity  of 
a  Divine  Influence  in  the  soul,  and  upon  it  we  place  our 
chief  dependence.  Our  prayer  is,  that  the  Spirit  of  God 
may  guide  us  aright,  so  that  our  present  seeking  after  the 
truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus  may  be  blessed  to  our  eternal  salva- 
tion. 


OUR    LORD    JESUS    CHRIST. 


HE  SAITH  UNTO  THBM,  BUT  WHOM  SAT  TE  THAT  I  AM  ?  AND  SI- 
MON  PETER  ANSWERED  AND  SAID,  THOU  ART  THE  CHRIST,  THE   gOM 

OF  THE  LIVING  GOD."  —  Matthew  xvi.  16. 

These  words  distinctly  explain  the  subject  before  us  this 
evening.  The  question  asked  is  exactly  that  which  we 
now  ask,  —  Whom  do  the  Scriptures  say  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  ?  And  the  answer  given  is  exactly  the  same  which  we, 
as  Unitarian  believers,  would  give.  We  take  the  words 
in  their  fullest  meaning,  and  adopt  them  as  the  confession 
of  our  faith.  "  He  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God." 
In  these  words,  not  only  the  statement  of  our  belief  is 
contained,  but  also  the  argument  on  which  it  rests.  The 
word  "  Christ "  means  anointed.  It  is  in  Greek,  the  same 
with  "  Messiah "  in  Hebrew,  and  implies  that  Jesus  was 
anointed  by  God  with  the  Holy  Spirit  and  with  power,  to 
become  a  prince  and  a  saviour,  a  prophet  and  a  judge.  It 
implies,  therefore,  very  high  distinction,  but  at  the  same 
time  a  distinction  conferred  by  one  higher  than  himself. 

He  is  also  "  the  Son  of  God  " ;  a  phrase  elsewhere  oe- 
Btowed  upon  prophets  and  righteous  men,  but  here  used  with 
peculiar  solemnity,  —  "the  Son  of  the  living  God,"  —  and 
with    peculiar  meaning  ;    the   same  as  when   he  is  called 


40  OUR    LORD    JESUS    CHRIST. 

"  the  beloved  Son,"  or  "  the  only  begotten  Son  of  his  Fa- 
ther." Such  words,  I  think,  announce  peculiar  exaltation, 
—  peculiar  nearness  to  God.  I  doubt  if  we  can  at  present 
understand  their  full  meaning.  To  me,  when  taken  in 
connection  with  other  expressions  used  by  our  Saviour  con- 
cerning himself,  they  convey  an  idea  of  mystery,  of  union 
with  God  inexplicably  close  ;  a  mystery  into  which  we  can 
but  imperfectly  penetrate,  because  it  is  but  imperfectly  re- 
vealed. But  at  the  same  time,  while  the  expression  con- 
veys the  idea  of  an  unknown  exaltation,  it  distinctly  im- 
plies derivation  and  dependence.  If  words  mean  any 
thing,  —  if  we  are  to  use  them  according  to  their  intelligi- 
ble meaning,  —  the  Son  owes  his  existence  to  the  Father, 
and  cannot  therefore  be  self-existent.  The  very  idea  of 
sonship  is  of  derivation,  and  is  therefore  inconsistent  with 
the  doctrine  both  of  identity  and  of  equality.  If  words 
mean  any  thing,  he  who  is  the  Son  of  the  living  or  su- 
preme God  cannot  be  himself  the  supreme  God,  but  must 
be  derived  from  him,  and  dependent  on  him. 

In  the  statement  now  given,  I  have  expressed  my  whole 
belief  concerning  Christ.  In  the  words  of  Peter,  I  say, 
"  He  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God."  With  that 
confession  of  faith  Jesus  was  satisfied  ;  for  he  said,  "  Bless- 
ed art  thou,  Simon,  son  of  Jonah,  for  flesh  and  blood  hath 
not  revealed  it  unto  thee,  but  my  Father  which  is  in  heav- 
en." It  is,  then,  not  only  the  opinion  of  the  Apostles,  con- 
firmed by  Christ,  but  it  is  also  the  direct  inspiration  of  the 
Father  in  heaven.  We  have  reason,  therefore,  to  be  satis- 
fied with  it.  We  adopt  it,  word  for  word,  as  the  confes- 
sion of  faith  in  this  church,  and  are  willing  to  receive  no 
other.  It  constitutes  us  Unitarians.  My  task  this  evening 
is  to  show  its  meaning  more  fully,  and  to  prove  that  it  is 
taught,  not  only  in  the  words  cf  the  text,  hut  everywhere 
else  in  the  Bible. 


OUR   LOUD   JESUS    CHRIST.  41 

First  of  all,  you  will  observe,  and  I  call  your  attention 
particularly  to  it,  that  those  who  accuse  us  of  believing 
that  Christ  is  a  mere  man,  are  in  error.  They  are  preju- 
diced or  misinformed.  If  by  a  mere  man  they  mean  one 
like  ourselves,  or  like  the  prophets  of  the  olden  time,  Mo- 
ses, or  Isaiah,  or  Ezekiel,  or  John  the  Baptist,  the  charge 
is  entirely  untrue.  I  know  of  no  Unitarians  who  hold  such 
a  belief.  There  may  be  individuals  who  receive  it,  as 
there  are  individuals  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  who  be- 
lieve in  infant  damnation ;  but  I  hope  they  are  few  in  both 
cases.  You  will  also  find,  among  nominal  Unitarians, 
some  who  have  almost  no  faith  at  all ;  who  hold  to  Jesus 
only  as  they  might  hold  to'Socrates.  I  pass  no  sentence 
upon  them,  for  it  is  not  our  part  to  sit  in  judgment  or  to 
pronounce  anathemas  ;  but  I  do  say,  that  they  are  not  to  be 
taken  as  the  exponents  of  the  Unitarian  faith.  I  feel  satis- 
fied, from  observation  which  has  been  very  extended,  that 
there  is  no  denomination  in  which  Christ  is  more  heartily 
received  than  in  our  own.  A  vulgar  prejudice  has  been 
sometimes  excited  against  us,  by  calling  Unitarianism  the 
half-way  house  to  infidelity ;  but  I  believe  that  it  has  been 
the  means  of  saving  more  persons  from  infidelity  than  any 
other  form  of  belief.  It  addresses  itself  to  thinking  men 
and  encourages  them  to  think  independently,  but  it  does 
not  make  shipwreck  of  faith.  It  receives  Christ  as  the  di- 
vine master  and  guide,  but  at  the  same  time  proves  his 
doctrines  to  be  consistent  with  enlightened  reason. 

Unitarians,  as  a  body  of  believers,  everywhere,  agree  in 
the  belief  that  Christ  is  the  special  messenger  of  God  ; 
that  his  mission  was  divine  ;  that  his  character  was  sinless  ; 
that  his  authority  was  so  directly  from  God,  that  whatever 
he  taught  is  the  teaching  of  the  Father.  "  For  he  spake 
not  of  himself,  but  as  the  Father  gave  him  commandment, 
4* 


42  OUR    LORD    JESUS    CHRIST. 

po  he  taught."  He  was  divine,  therefore,  in  his  mission,  in 
his  character,  and  in  his  authority.  This  is  not  the  descrip- 
tion of  a  mere  man.  Consider  only  the  distinction  of  ab- 
solute freedom  from  sin,  to  say  nothing  of  his  superhuman 
wisdom  and  power  ;  how  completely  does  that  distinction 
alone  place  him  by  himself!  What  nearness  to  God  does 
it  give  him  !  We  can  but  imperfectly  conceive  it.  Our 
own  sinfulness  is  so  great,  it  is  so  inherent  in  our  nature 
so  inseparable  from  the  development  of  our  thoughts  and 
affections,  that  we  but  imperfectly  understand  its  debasing 
influence.  I  believe  that,  if  we  could  this  day  be  absolute* 
ly  freed  from  sin,  we  should  be  lost  in  amazement  at  the 
height  to  which  we  would  rise,  and  the  comparative  degra- 
dation in  which  we  now  stand.  To  be  absolutely  freed 
from  sin,  is  to  be  indeed  the  Son  of  God  ;  it  is  the  highest 
moral  exaltation ;  and  when  we  add  thereto  such  authority 
and  power  as  belonged  to  Jesus,  we  see  how  very  far  he  is 
from  all  our  ideas  of  a  mere  man. 

Upon  one  point  of  considerable  importance,  Unitarian 
believers  are  divided  in  opinion.  Some  of  them,  among 
whom  are  included  a  majority  of  English  Unitarians,  be- 
lieve that  the  existence  of  Christ  began  when  he  was  born 
at  Bethlehem  of  Judea.  They  defend  this  belief  by  the 
records  of  his  life,  from  his  infancy  to  his  crucifixion.  — 
That  he  calls  himself  a  man,  and  is  so  called  and  so  treat- 
ed by  his  disciples  ;  and  that  he  was  subject  to  the  wants, 
to  the  infirmities,  the  sufferings,  and  death,  which  belong  to 
humanity.  This  class  of  believers  is  sometimes  calle  1 
Humanitarian.  Although  there  are  many  arguments  diffi- 
cult to*  answer,  by  which  their  belief  is  sustained,  I  have 
never  been  satisfied  with  it.  I  do  not  now  belong,  and  I 
never  have  belonged,  to  their  number.  We  acknowledge 
them  as  brethren,  and  among  them  we  see  many  of  the 


OUR  LORD  JESUS  CHRIST.  43 

most  excellent  names  which  adorn  the  Unitarian  calendar ; 
but  I  cannot  agree  with  them  in  opinion.  I  admit,  how- 
ever, that  the  most  essential  point  in  the  Christian  faith  is, 
not  the  time  when  Christ's  existence  began,  nor  the  meta- 
physical elements  of  his  nature,  but  the  degree  of  his  au- 
thority to  speak  in  the  name  of  God.  If  the  Scriptures 
say  truly,  that  to  him  the  Spirit  was  given  without  meas- 
ure, and  that  he  has  power  to  give  eternal  life  to  whom  he 
will,  this  alone  is  enough  to  make  his  religion  divine,  and 
to  enable  us  to  receive  him  as  our  Saviour. 

The  other  part  of  Unitarians  believe  that  Christ  came 
down  from  heaven  to  accomplish  his  work  on  earth ;  that 
from  his  dwelling  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  he  was  sent, 
a  willing  messenger,  to  bring  glad  tidings  of  great  joy, 
and  to  accomplish,  for  our  salvation,  a  work  which  we 
could  not  do  for  ourselves.  To  this  faith  I  give  my  adher- 
ence, and  more  strongly,  from  year  to  year,  as  I  become 
more  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  Bible.  As  I  have  al- 
ready said,  I  do  not  pretend  to  define  it  exactly.  The  na- 
ture of  his  being,  before  he  came  upon  earth,  is  entirely 
unknown  to  us.  The  degree  of  his  nearness  to  God,  either 
then  or  now,  we  can  but  imperfectly  understand.  But  1 
am  unable  to  interpret  his  language  concerning  himself,  or 
the  language  of  his  Apostles  concerning  him,  consistently 
with  any  other  belief. 

When  the  Jews  were  objecting  to  him  his  youth  and  the 
obscurity  of  his  birth,  he  answered,  John  viii.  56,  '*  Your 
father  Abraham  rejoiced  to  see  my  day,  and  he  saw  and 
was  glad.  Then  said  the  Jews  unto  him,  thou  art  not  fifty 
years  old,  and  hast  thou  seen  Abraham  ?  And  Jesus  said 
unto  them,  before  Abraham  was,  I  am."  In  his  prayer  to 
the  Father,  he  says,  John  xvii.  5,  "  Glorify  thou  me  with 
thy  own  self,  with  the  glory  which  I  had  with  thee  before 


44  OUR   LORD    JESUS    CHRIST. 

the  world  was."  And  again,  verse  24,  "  For  thou  lovedat 
me  before  the  foundation  of  the  world."  At  another  time, 
when  the  Jews  objected  to  his  saying  that  he  was  the  bread 
which  came  down  from  heaven,  he  said  to  his  disciples, 
John  vi.  61,  *'  Doth  this  offend  you  ?  What  and  if  ye  shall 
see  the  Son  of  man  ascend  up  where  he  was  before  ?  " 
John  the  Baptist,  in  speaking  of  him,  said,  John  i.  30,  "  Af- 
ter me  Cometh  a  man  which  is  preferred  before  me,  for  he 
was  before  me." 

"  In  this  connection  let  me  quote  the  Saviour's  words. 
*  No  man  hath  ascended  up  to  heaven  but  he  that  came  down 
from  heaven.'  Is  it  said  that  coming  down  from  heaven 
simply  implies  a  divine  commission  ?  Why,  then,  did  not 
John  the  Baptist,  who  certainly  had  a  commission,  no  less 
from  God  than  that  of  Jesus,  speak  of  himself  as  com- 
ing down  from  heaven.?  But  he  in  this  same  chapter 
(John  iii.)  expressly  speaks  of  Christ  as  coming  down  from 
heaven  in  a  sense  in  which  he  himself  did  not  come  from 
heaven,  and  of  himself  as  being  of  the  earth  in  a  sense  in 
which  Christ  was .  not  of  the  earth.  '  He  must  increase,' 
says  the  Baptist,  '  but  I  must  decrease.  He  that  cometh 
from  above  is  above  all.  He  that  cometh  from  the  earth 
is  earthly,  and  speaketh  of  the  earth.  He  that  cometh 
from  heaven  is  above  all.' "  * 

In  accordance  with  this  view,  it  is  said  of  Christ,  "  He 
made  himself  of  no  reputation  "  ;  which  means,  literally, 
he  divested  himself,  as  if  of  what  he  had  previously  pos- 
sessed or  enjoyed,  "and  took  upon  him  the  form  of  a  ser 
vant,  and  was  made  in  the  likeness  of  men,  and  being 
found  in  fashion  as  a  man,  he  humbled  himself."  (Phil. 
ii.  7.)     In  another  place  it  is  said,  "  Ye  know  the  grace  of 

*  Peabody's  Lectures. 


OUR    LORD    JESUS    CHRIST.  45 

our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  though  he  was  rich,  yet  for 
your  sakes  he  became  poor,  that  ye,  through  his  poverty, 
might  become  rich  "  ;  by  which  we  understand  that  Jesus, 
for  man's  salvation,  passed  from  a  richer  to  a  poorer,  from 
a  more  lofty  to  a  more  humble  condition. 

It  is  true  that  Christ  is  called  a  man  ;  but  properly  con- 
sidered, this  is  no  objection  to  the  view  now  offered.  The 
essential  idea  of  humanity  is  not  derived  from  weakness 
and  sin,  but  from  that  mysterious  connection  of  the  soul 
and  body,  —  the  immortal  spirit  with  the  corruptible  flesh, 
—  by  which  the  soul  is  made  subject  to  earthly  influence. 
Our  spiritual  nature  is  probably  the  same,  in  its  elements, 
with  that  of  the  most  exalted  archangel.  The  highest  cre- 
ated spirit,  therefore,  if  clothed  in  human  form  and  subject- 
ed to  human  sympathies  and  temptations,  would  become, 
properly  speaking,  a  man.  Consider  the  distance  between 
different  members  of  the  human  family,  as  at  present  con- 
stituted. Take  Newton,  with  his  mind  reaching  up  to  the 
heights  of  heaven,  and  place  him  by  the  side  of  one  of 
those  thousands  of  his  own  countrymen,  whose  thoughts 
have  scarcely  a  larger  range  than  that  of  a  brute  ;  see  how 
wide  a  field  is  covered  by  that  word,  man  !  For  these  two 
are  brothers,  of  the  same  family,  of  the  same  descent. 
And  so,  as  Jesus  is  called  "  the  Son  of  God,"  and  we  also 
are  honored  by  the  same  name,  —  as  he  is  called  the  "  first- 
bom  of  every  creature,"  with  reference  to  that  spiritual 
family  of  which  we  are  the  younger  children,  —  I  believe 
that  we  may  claim  kindred  with  him.  Coming  from  the 
bosom  of  the  Father,  to  make  known  the  Father's  love,  he 
took  our  nature  upon  him.  He  became  a  man.  The 
attributes  of  humanity  belonged  to  him.  Suffering  as  we 
Buffer,  tempted  in  all  points  as  we  are,  yet  without  sin,  "  he 
gave  us  a  perfect  example  in  the  performance  of  those 


46  OUR    LORD   JESUS    CHRIST. 

duties  which  are  incumbent  on  all  createcJ  spirits,  and 
which  are  the  sane  to  all,  namely,  love  and  obedience  to 
the  great  father-spirit,  love  and  charity  to  all  fellow-spirits." 
He  was  a  man,  more  perfectly  than  any  other.  In  him  hu 
manity  was  glorified  ;  the  ideal,  which  is  proposed  to  us  all 
was  perfected  in  him.  The  weakness  of  the  flesh  was  net 
only  brought  into  subjection  to  the  spirit,  but  the  spirit  was 
made  stronger  through  the  victory,  as  it  is  written,  Christ 
"  was  made  perfect  through  suffering."  All  human  pas- 
sions, all  desires,  all  purposes,  were  thus  made  pure  and 
heavenly  ;  and  thus  it  is  that  through  his  humiliation  "  God 
has  highly  exalted  him,  and  given  him  a  name  above  every 
name." 

It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that  those  passages  of  the  Bible 
which  speak  of  the  great  exaltation  of  Jesus  cannot  be 
brought  against  us,  as  Unitarians,  unless  they  distinctly  im- 
ply his  equality  with  the  Father.  This  needs  to  be  care- 
fully remarked.  Trinitarians  are  apt  to  think  that  every 
text  which  speaks  of  Christ's  great  power,  and  wisdom, 
and  authority,  or  of  his  exaltation  at  the  right  hand  of  God, 
militates  against  our  doctrine  ;  but  it  is  not  so.  He  is  to  us, 
also,  the  Son  of  the  living  God,  the  image  of  the  Father, 
through  whom,  both  in  his  person  and  in  his  life  and  in  his 
words,  as  much  is  made  known  of  the  Infinite  God  as  it  is 
possible  for  us  to  know  in  our  present  state.  There  is  but 
one  way  to  overthrow  the  Unitarian  doctrine.  It  is  to  prove, 
not  that  Christ  is  "  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour  by  the  right  hand 
of  God  highly  exalted,"  but  that  he  is  the  Infinite  God  him- 
self, by  whom  that  exaltation  was  given.  It  is  not  to  prove 
that  the  Father  made  himself  manifest  through  the  Son,  as 
it  is  written,  "  the  word  was  made  flesh,"  that  is,  "  the 
divine  wisdom  and  power  were  manifested  in  a  human 
form,"  but  it  is  to  prove  that  the  Father,  who  is  the  being 


OUR    LORD   JESUS    CHRIST.  47 

manifested,  is  the  same  with  the  Son,  wlio  was  the  medium 
of  the  manifestation.  The  question  between  us  and  Trin- 
itarians is  simply  this :  Did  the  Saviour,  when  he  said, 
"  My  Father  is  greater  than  I,"  mean  what  he  seemed  to 
say,  and  what  he  was  understood  by  those  who  heard  him 
to  say,  or  did  he  mean  that,  while  there  was  an  apparent 
inferiority,  he  was  in  fact  equal  with  the  Father,  possessed 
of  the  same  attributes,  being  himself  the  absolute  and  Su- 
preme God.? 

Here  is  the  true  point  of  the  controversy.  I  think  that 
it  settles  itself.  I  scarcely  know  how  to  bring  any  argu- 
ments to  make  it  plainer.  I  am  almost  afraid  that  in  mul- 
tiplying words,  in  so  plain  a  case,  I  may  darken  counsel, 
but  must  try.  I  shall  show  you,  first,  that  Christ  himself 
distinctly  denies  the  possession  of  divine  attributes  ;  sec- 
ondly, that  the  Apostles,  when  they  speak  of  him  in  the 
highest  terms  of  exaltation,  and  therefore  of  his  highest 
nature,  uniformly  declare  his  entire  dependence  on  God, 
the  Father. 

The  leading  attributes  of  Deity  are  Self-existence,  Om 
nipotence.  Omniscience,  and  Infinite  Goodness.  If  we  can 
prove  by  the  words  of  Christ  himself  that  he  denies  the 
possession  of  one  and  all  of  these,  I  think  our  case  is  made 
out.  His  distinct  denial  of  any  one  of  these  attributes 
would  be  enough  ;  but,  in  fact,  he  denies  them  all. 

1.  Of  Self-existence.  This  attribute  implies  absolute 
independence  ;  an  existence  to  which  no  other  being  is 
necessary  ;  self-derived  and  self-sustained.  But  Christ  de- 
clares a  hundred  times  that  he  came  not  of  himself,  but 
that  the  Father  sent  him  ;  see  John  viii.  42,  "  Neither  came 
I  of  myself,  but  he  sent  me."  He  declared  that  he  was 
indebted  to  the  Father  for  the  support  of  his  existence ; 
John  vi.  57,  "  As  the  living  Father  hath  sent  me,  and  1 


/ 


48  OUR   LORD   JESUS    CHRIST. 

live  hy  the  Father  "  ;  and  again,  John  v.  26,  "As  the  Fa 
ther  hath  life  in  himself,  so  hath  he  given  to  the  Son  to 
have  life  in  himself.  I  can  of  mine  own  self  do  nothing* 
as  I  hear  I  judge,  and  my  judgment  is  just,  because  I  seek 
not  mine  own  will,  but  the  will  of  the  Father  who  sent  me." 
He  says  also,  John  x.  18,  "  No  man  taketh  my  life  from 
me,  but  I  lay  it  down  of  myself;  I  have  power  [the  literal 
meaning  is  author ityl  to  lay  it  down,  and  I  have  authority 
to  take  it  again  ;  this  commandment  have  I  received  of  my 
Father."  Which  also  agrees  with  2  Cor.  xiii.  4,  "  Though 
he  was  crucified  through  weakness,  yet  he  liveth  by  the 
power  of  God."  Here  is  a  distinct  and  full  denial  of 
underived  and  indep«s.^dent  existence  Upon  the  authority 
of  Christ  himself,  therefore,  we  say  that  he  was  not  the 
Self-existent  God. 

2.  Omnipotence.  Jesus  distinctly  and  repeatedly  de- 
clares that  he  is  not  in  possession  of  this  attribute.  He 
uniformly  speaks  of  his  power  as  being  given  by  the 
Father  and  exercised  under  his  direction.  But  the  idea  of 
omnipotence  is  inconsistent  with  that  of  derived  power 
and  delegated  authority.  Omnipotence  cannot  be  given  by 
one  to  another.  In  such  a  case  he  who  gives  must  be 
greater  than  he  who  receives.  Therefore,  when  the  Sav- 
iour says,  Matt,  xxviii.  18,  "  All  power  is  given  to  me  by 
the  Father,"  the  word  given  necessarily  limits  the  word 
all.  The  text  is  sometimes  quoted  to  prove  Christ's  om- 
nipotence, but  we  think  it  proves  just  the  contrary.  Agam 
he  says,  John  v.  19,  "  The  Son  can  do  nothing  of  him- 
self" ;  and  again,  verse  30,  "I  can  of  mine  own  self  do 
nothing."  And  still  more  pointedly,  when  he  was  asked 
for  a  certain  distinction  by  James  and  John,  he  answered 
Matt.  XX.  23,  "  To  sit  on  my  right  hand  and  on  my  left  is 
not  mine  to  give  ;  but  it  shall  be  given  to  them  for  whom  it 


OUR    LORD    JESUS    CHRIST.  49 

is  prepared  of  my  Father."  In  his  last  conversation  with 
his  disciples  he  says,  "  If  ye  loved  me,  ye  would  rejoice, 
because  I  said,  I  go  unto  the  Father ;  for  my  Father  is 
greater  than  I."  (John  xiv.  28.)  These  declarations  are 
distinct  and  unqualified.  We  are  therefore  ready  to  re- 
ceive Christ  in  the  highest  exaltation  which  the  Scripture 
accords  to  him.  But  we  feel  at  the  same  time  compelled 
to  believe  his  own  words.  These  are  the  best  authority. 
They  do  not  teach  us  that  he  is  Almighty,  but  that  he  is 
dependent  in  all  things  upon  the  Father. 

3.  Omniscience.  This  is  the  attribute  by  which  he  who 
possesses  it  knows  all  things.  An  omniscient  being  needs 
not  to  be  instructed.  Thus  it  is  written  of  the  Almighty, 
Isaiah  xl.  13,  "  Who  hath  directed  the  spirit  of  the  Lord, 
or,  being  his  counsellor,  hath  taught  him .''  With  whom 
took  he  counsel,  and  who  instructed  him,  and  taught  him 
in  the  path  of  judgment,  and  taught  him  knowledge  ?  " 
Compare  those  words  with  the  words  of  the  Saviour,  John 
vii.  16,  "  My  doctrine  is  not  mine,  but  his  that  sent  me  "  ; 
and  xiv.  24,  "  The  word  which  ye  hear  is  not  mine,  but  the 
Father's  who  sent  me."  And  again,  viii.  28,  "  As  my 
Father  hath  taught  me,  I  speak  these  things."  And  even 
more  strongly,  xii.  49,  "  I  have  not  spoken  of  myself,  but 
the  Father  who  sent  me,  he  gave  me  a  commandment, 
what  I  should  say  and  what  I  should  speak.  Whatsoever  I 
speak,  therefore,  even  as  the  Father  said  unto  me,  so  1 
speak  "  All  this  is  an  expression  of  imparted  knowledge, 
which,  however  great  it  may  be,  must  always  be  less  than 
omniscience.  And  accordingly  we  find,  Matthew  xxiv.  36, 
and  Mark  xiii.  32,  when  asked  concerning  a  future  event, 
Jesus  answered,  "  Of  that  day  and  that  hour  knoweth  no 
man  ;  no,  not  the  angels  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but 
the  Father."  In  Matthew  it  says,  "  but  my  Father  onJy.  ' 
5 


50  OITR    LORD   JESUS    CHRIST. 

We  cannot  escape  from  these  words  if  we  would.  V  e 
place  implicit  reliance  upon  whatever  Christ  taught.  We 
believe  that  God  spake  through  him  ;  and  upon  his  own 
authority  we  say,  that  omniscience  is  the  attribute  of  the 
Father  only. 

4.  Infinite  Goodness.  We  believe  that  Christ  was  per- 
fectly free  from  sin,  that  he  went  about  doing  good,  and 
finished  the  work  which  God  gave  him  to  do.  In  this  sense 
therefore,  he  was  perfect ;  but  there  is  a  sense  in  which 
none  but  an  Infinite  being  is  good,  and  in  this  sense  Christ 
denied  it  of  himself,  Mark  x.  18.  When  some  one  called 
him  "  Good  Master,"  he  answered,  "  Why  callest  thou  me 
good  ?  there  is  none  good  but  one,  that  is  God."  The 
same  words  are  found  in  the  parallel  passages  in  Matthew 
and  Luke. 

What  are  we  to  say  of  these  plain  denials  by  the  Saviour 
himself,  not  of  one  only,  but  of  all  these  attributes  ?  We 
have  his  own  words  to  prove  that  he  is  neither  Self-exist- 
ent, Omniscient,  All-wise,  nor  Infinitely  Good.  On  what 
ground  can  we  set  aside  his  testimony  ?  We  shall  be  told, 
perhaps,  that  all  this  is  spoken  only  of  his  human  nature ; 
that  he  denied  these  attributes  as  a  man,  although  he  was 
conscious  of  possessing  them  as  God. 

We  find  no  fault  with  those  who  are  satisfied  with  this 
answer,  but  it  does  not  satisfy  us.  It  does  not  seem  to  us 
the  fair  interpretation  of  plain  language.  For,  first,  we 
find  no  passage  in  the  Bible,  and  there  is  none,  in  whrch  it 
is  taught  that  our  Saviour  had  two  natures,  one  human  and 
one  divine  ;  but  he  is  always  spoken  of  as  a  single  being, 
"  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God."  And  secondly 
we  think  that  when  he  spoke  of  himself  without  qualifica- 
tion, using  *he  personal  pronouns,  /,  and  myself,  and  me, 
he  must  have  used  them  in  their  common  meaning,  and  ha 


OUR    LORD   JESUS    CHRIST.  '   51 

was  certainly,  at  the  time,  so  understood.  If  he  had  in- 
tended to  have  been  understood  differently,  he  would  have 
given  some  indication  of  it.  As  he  gave  none,  we  take 
his  words  in  their  plain  and  obvious  meaning.  Just  as  you 
would  understand  me,  if  I  were  to  say,  "  I  do  not  know 
such  a  thing,"  or  "  I  cannot  do  such  a  thing,"  witnout 
qualifying  the  words,  so  do  we  understand  him.  We  dare 
not  understand  him  otherwise.  For  would  it  be  right  for 
me  to  say,  "  I  do  not  know  such  a  thing,"  if  I  really  know 
it .?  and  defend  myself  by  saying,  that  my  body  does  not 
know  it,  but  my  mind  does  ?  or  that  I  know  it  as  a  clergy- 
man, but  not  as  a  citizen  ?  Such  would  not  be  a  fair  use 
of  language ;  and  if  the  Scripture  were  to  be  interpreted 
in  such  a  manner,  there  is  absolutely  no  doctrine  which 
could  not  be  proved  from  it.  We  understand  Jesus  simply 
as  he  spoke,  and  therefore,  while  we  pray  for  the  time 
when  "  at  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  shall  bow,  and 
every  tongue  confess  him  to  be  the  Lord,"  we  remember 
that  this  must  always  be  done  "  to  the  glory  of  God  the 
Father." 

The  quotation  of  this  verse  brings  us  to  the  last  topic 
of  my  present  discourse.  I  am  still  to  prove  that  the  Apos- 
tles, in  those  passages  where  they  speak  of  Christ's  highest 
exaltation,  uniformly  declare  that  he  is  dependent  for  all 
upon  the  Father.  For  this  purpose  I  shall  use  only  those 
texts  which  are  commonly  considered  proofs  of  his  Supreme 
Divinity.  They  are  therefore  undoubtedly  applicable  to 
his  highest  nature,  whatever  they  may  be ;  and  if,  when  so 
spoken  of,  his  dependence  on  God  is  alleged,  our  argument 
will  be  conclusive.  For,  as  I  have  already  said,  we  do  not 
pretend  to  define  the  degree  of  exaltation  which  belongs  to 
Christ.  We  remain  Unitarians  so  long  as  we  believe  that 
the  Father  alone  is  the  Supreme  God. 


62  OUR  LORD  JESUS  CHRIST. 

1.  There  is  probably  no  text  oftener  quoted  against  \is, 
than  the  first  part  of  tht^  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  particu- 
larly the  eighth  verse  :  "  But  unto  the  Son  he  saith,  Thy 
thron*?,  O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever;  a  sceptre  of  right- 
eousness is.  the  sceptre  of  thy  kingdom;  thou  hast  loved 
righteousness  and  hated  iniquity."  The  word  God  is  here 
applied  to  Christ,  and  is  understood  as  a  proof  of  his  deity. 
This,  however,  would  be  an  uncertain  proof,  for  the  same 
word  is  applied  quite  frequently  in  a  subordinate  sense.  It 
was  applied  to  Moses,  who  was  said  to  be  "  a  god  to  Pha- 
raoh." Exod.  vii.  1.  Those  also  were  called  Gods  to 
whom  the  word  of  God  came.  See  John  x.  35.  We 
must  look,  therefore,  to  the  connection  to  see  what  its  mean- 
ing is,  in  this  case  ;  and  we  read  directly  after  the  words 
quoted,  "  Therefore  God,  even  thy  God,  hath  anointed 
thee  with  the  oil  of  gladness  above  thy  fellows."  Observe, 
therefore,  which  is  the  point  of  our  argument  in  this  case, 
that,  even  when  spoken  of  as  God,  there  is  the  Supreme 
God  over  him,  from  whom  he  receives  his  anointing,  and 
by  whom  he  is  raised  above  his  equals.  Let  me  read  to 
you,  also,  the  beginning  of  that  same  chapter,  that  you.  may 
see  how  plainly  the  dependence  of  Christ  upon  the  Father 
is  expressed. 

"  God,  who  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers  manners  spake 
in  time  past  unto  the  fathers  by  the  prophets,  hath  in  these 
last  days  spoken  unto  us  by  his  Son,  whom  he  hath  ap- 
pointed heir  of  all  things,  by  whom  also  he  made  the 
worlds  ;  who  being  the  brightness  of  his  glory,  and  the 
express  image  of  his  person,  and  upholding  all  things  by 
the  word  of  his  power,  when  he  had  by  himself  purged  oui 
sins,  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty  on  high 
being  made  so  much  better  than  the  angels,  as  he  hath  by 
inheritance   obtained   a   more    exce'lent   name   than   thev 


OUR    LORD    JESUS   CHRIST.  53 

For  unto  which  of  the  angels  said  he  at  any  time,  Thou  art 
my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee  ?  And  again,  I  will 
be  to  him  a  Father,  and  he  shall  be  to  me  a  Son."  We 
admit  that  words  cannot  easily  express  higher  exaltation 
than  this.  It  was  the  Apostle's  intention  to  speak  in  the 
strongest  terms  which  were  consistent  with  truth,  and  he 
has  done  so.  In  reading  them  we  perceive  that  the  exalta- 
tion of  Christ  is  greater  than  we  can  fully  comprehend. 
But  at  the  same  time  we  perceive,  with  equal  plainness, 
delegated  authority  and  absolute  dependence  on  the  Father. 
On  the  one  hand,  we  can  have  no  doubt  that  his  highest 
nature  is  here  spoken  of,  for  there  is  no  passage  in  which 
stronger  words  are  used.  On  the  other  hand,  we  read  that 
he  did  not  speak  of  himself,  but  that  God  spoke  by  him  ; 
that  in  all  his  highest  offices  he  was  the  agent  of  God, 
working  only  by  God's  power  ;  that  he  obtained  a  more 
excellent  name  than  the  angels  by  inheritance,  according 
to  the  appointment  of  God  ;  that  there  was  a  time  when 
his  existence  began,  as  plainly  expressed  in  these  words, 
"  This  day  have  I  begotten  thee."  In  the  tenth,  eleventh, 
and  twelfth  verses,  which  are  a  quotation  from  Psalm 
cii.,  the  Almighty  himself  is  addressed  as  the  source  of 
all  power  and  might ;  after  which  the  Apostle  returns  to 
his  former  subject,  the  dignity  of  Christ,  which  he  again 
ascribes  to  God  as  the  Author  and  Giver. 

We  refer  next  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  the  first 
and  second  chapters.  I  cannot  quote  them  at  large,  but 
request  you  to  read  them  carefully  for  yourselves.  You 
will  find  the  same  remarks  hold  good  which  have  been  made 
on  the  passage  already  quoted.  You  will  find  language 
which  you  cannot  reconcile  with  the  doctrine  of  mere  hu- 
manity ;  you  will  feel  amazed,  as  in  the  presence  of  a 
being  highly  exalted  above  every  one  of  us ;  but  evejyi 
5* 


54  OUR    LORD   JESUS    CHRIST. 

where  you  will  find  proof  of  derived  authority  and  depend 
ent  existence.  He  is  "  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,'' 
and  therefore  not  the  invisible  God  himself.  He  is  "  the 
first-born  of  every  creature,"  and  therefore  himself  a  cre- 
ated being.  The  reason  and  the  source  of  his  great  exal- 
tation are  distinctly  given  :  "  For  it  pleased  the  Father  that 
in  him  all  fulness  should  dwell." 

In  both  of  these  passages  language  is  used  which  seems 
to  imply  that  Christ  is  the  agent  by  whom  all  things  were 
created  and  upheld.  I  think  that  this  properly  refers  to  the 
spiritual  world  in  heaven  and  on  earth,  of  which  he  is  ap- 
pointed the  head  and  director ;  but  time  will  not  allow 
me  to  consider  this  question  now.  It  is  altogether  unim- 
portant to  our  present  argument,  for  it  does  not  afiect  the 
real  exaltation  of  Christ,  nor  does  it  alter  the  fact  of  his 
complete  dependence  on  the  Father. 

We  next  refer  to  Phil,  ii,  5,  11 ;  in  the  sixth  verse  it  is 
said  of  Jesus  Christ,  "  Who,  being  in  the  form  of  God, 
thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God  " ;  of  which 
Calvin  says,  "  The  form  of  God  here  signifies  majesty  ; 
I  acknowledge,  indeed,  that  Paul  does  not  make  mention  of 
Christ's  divine  essence."  To  be  in  the  form  of  God  means, 
to  be  the  image  or  manifestation  of  God  ;  which  is  also 
the  interpretation  adopted  by  Le  Clerc  and  Macknight.  The 
proper  meaning  of  the  words,  "  Thought  it  not  robbery  to 
be  equal  with  God,"  is  that  given  by  Bishop  Sherlock, 
namely,  "  He  was  not  tenacious  of  appearing  as  God  ;  did 
not  eagerly  insist  to  be  equal  with  God."  This  is  the 
meaning  adopted  by  Coleridge,  Professor  Stuart,  Luther, 
Melancthon,  Archbishop  Tillotson,  Paley,  and  many  others 
of  the  most  eminent  Trinitarian  writers.  But  the  exact 
meaning  of  the  words  is  not  important  to  our  present  argu- 
menl.     Whatever  they  mean,  their  limitatior  is  found  in 


OUR    LORD    JESUS    CHRIST.  55 

the  ninth  and  following  verses.  "  Wherefore  God  hath 
highly  exalted  hint,  and  given  him  a  name  which  is  above 
every  name,  that  at  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  shall 
bow,  of  those  in  heaven,  and  those  in  earth  and  those  under 
the  earth,  and  that  every  tongue  should  confess  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father." 

One  of  the  most  important  books  in  the  New  Testament, 
in  a  doctrinal  point  of  view,  is  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 
It  contains  their  first  preaching  after  they  had  been  fully 
instructed  in  their  work.  Whatever  they  knew  of  Jesus  or 
believed  concerning  him  will  undoubtedly  be  found  there. 
They  were  impelled  at  the  same  time  by  strong  affection 
for  their  master,  by  a  deep  sense  of  their  former  unfaith- 
fulness to  him,  and  by  the  direct  command  of  God,  to  de- 
clare the  whole  truth.  Now  what  is  the  substance  of  their 
preaching  ?  Read  the  first  ten  chapters  of  that  book  and 
determine.  I  think  that  you  will  agree  with  me  that  it  is  a 
series  of  Unitarian  discourses.  There  is  not  an  expression, 
not  a  single  word  .hat  I  cannot  use,  or  that  I  am  not  accus- 
tomed to  use  as  a  Unitarian  believer.  They  indeed  declare 
that  Christ  is  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour,  that  he  is  both  Lord 
and  Christ  ;  but  how  is  it  that  he  obtained  this  authority  ? 
Let  them  answer  in  their  own  words  :  "  Therefore  let  all 
the  house  of  Israel  know  assuredly  that  God  hath  made 
that  same  Jesus  whom  ye  have  crucified  both  Lord  and 
Christ."  Acts  ii.  36.  "  Then  Peter  and  the  other  Apos- 
tles answered  and  said,  We  ought  to  obey  God  rather  than 
men.  The  God  of  our  fathers  raised  up  Jesus,  whom  ye 
slew  and  hanged  on  a  tree.  Him  hath  God  exalted  with 
his  own  right  hand,  to  be  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour,  to  give 
repentance  to  Israel  and  forgiveness  of  sins."  Acts  v.  29. 
This:  is  the  utmost  of  their  preaching  ;  further  than  this 
Uiey  never  go  ;  and  thus  far  we  as  Unitarians  go  with  them 


5B  OUR  LORD  JESUS  CHRIST. 

These  Scriptures  all  of  them  speak  of  Christ  in  his  high 
est  nature.  You  hear  them  quoted  every  day  to  prove  hia 
absolute  deity.  Yet  you  perceive  that  all  of  them,  by 
showing  his  dependence  on  God  the  Father,  prove  the  exac* 
contrary,  and  teach  that  though  so  highly  exalted,  even 
above  our  perfect  comprehension,  he  is  not  the  Supreme 
God  nor  equal  to  God  the  Father.  In  further  explanation 
of  this  view  I  will  quote  the  following  passage  from  the 
First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  xv.  24-28;  which  is  a 
distinct  and  full  declaration  of  the  Unitarian  doctrine  :  — 
*'  Then  cometh  the  end,  when  he  shall  have  delivered  up 
the  kingdom  to  God,  even  the  Father,  when  he  shall  have 
put  down  all  rule  and  all  authority  and  power.  For  he 
must  reign  till  he  hath  put  all  enemies  under  his  feet.  The 
last  enemy  that  shall  be  destroyed  is  death.  For  he  hath 
put  all  things  under  his  feet.  But  when  he  saith.  All  things 
are  put  under  him,  it  is  manifest  that  he  is  excepted  who 
did  put  all  things  under  him.  And  when  all  things  shall 
be  subdued  unto  him,  then  shall  the  Son  also  himself  be 
subject  unto  him  that  put  all  things  under  him,  that  God 
may  be  all  in  all." 

I  cannot  express  my  faith  as  a  Unitarian  in  plainer  words 
ihan  these.  They  are  a  brief  statement,  in  the  most  un- 
equivocal terms,  of  the  general,  pervading  doctrine  of  the 
Bible.  Such  is  the  testimony  of  Christ  concerning  himself, 
and  such  the  testimony  of  the  Apostles  concerning  him  as 
their  Lord  and  Master.  It  is  all  consistent  with  the  Sav- 
iour's own  prayer  to  the  Father,  "  That  they  might  know 
Thee,  the  Only  True  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hast 
sent " ;  and  with  the  words  of  Paul,  "  To  us  there  is  but 
one  God,  even  the  Father,  and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 

There  are,  however,  a  few  texts  which,  taken  by  them 
selves,  are  thought  to  teach  a  different  doctrire.     Among 


OUR    LORD    JESUS    CHRIST.  57 

thesvi  the  introduction  to  the  Gospel  of  John  is  the  most 
impoitant.  I  wish  to  examine  them  fairly  and  carefully, 
and  must  therefore  defer  them  to  another  evening.  In  the 
mean  time,  and  in  conclusion,  let  me  again  say  that,  with 
the  plain  words  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles  to  guide  us,  we 
ought  not  to  be  troubled  or  shaken  in  our  faith  by  a  few 
comparatively  obscure  and  difficult  passages.  In  so  large 
a  subject  we  ought  to  expect  some  remaining  difficulties, 
and  we  have  reason  to  thank  God  that  the  general  doctrine 
of  the  Bible  is  so  plainly  taught,  that  he  who  runs  may 
read. 


OUR   LOED   JESUS    CHKIST. 


TO   THE   LAW  AND   TO   THE   TESTIMONY.  —  Isaiah  viii.  20. 

1  HAVE  promised  this  evening  to  explain  the  principa. 
texts  in  the  Bible,  which  are  supposed  to  militate  against 
the  Unitarian  doctrine.  The  task  is  by  no  means  easy  ; 
not  because  there  is  inherent  difficulty  in  any  of  such  texts, 
or  in  all  of  them  put  together,  but  because  the  work,  to  be 
thoroughly  done,  would  be  very  tedious.  A  single  passage, 
if  at  all  obscure,  may  require  a  great  many  words  in  its 
critical  exposition.  Nor  is  the  hearer  always  able  to  decide 
whether  the  explanation  is  satisfactory  or  not ;  he  must 
take  a  great  part  of  the  critical  statements  upon  authority, 
and  he  is  very  apt  to  be  suspicious  of  unfair  dealing,  when 
an  interpretation  is  given  to  familiar  words  different  from 
that  to  which  he  is  accustomed.  He  is  apt  to  think  that  the 
language,  instead  of  being  explained,  is  explained  away. 
For  this  reason,  I  am  accustomed,  in  explaining  a  disputed 
passage,  to  give  "  Orthodox  "  Trinitarian  authority  for  the 
explanation  which  I  adopt.  It  is  not  because  I  think  that 
8uch  testimony  is  more  respectable  than  that  of  our  own 
writers,  but  because  I  would  put  the  explanations  given 
beyond  the  suspicion  of  unfairness.     For  if,  with  reference 


OUR     LORD    JESUS    CHRIST.  69 

o  any  particular  text,  we  can  show  that  eminent  scholars 
in  the  Trinitarian  ranks  have  given  the  same  explanation, 
although  they  have  thereby  weakened  their  own  argument, 
it  will  follow  that  the  words  are  fairly  susceptible  of  such 
a  meaning.  In  adopting  a  Unitarian  explanation,  upon 
Trinitarian  authority,  we  need  have  no  fear  tiuit  the  words 
are  distorted,  or  the  meaning  perverted,  merely  to  suit  our 
end. 

Now  it  is  a  very  singular  fact,  and  it  is  one  which  greatly 
confirms  me  in  my  Unitarian  belief,  that  there  is  not  a  sin- 
gle text  in  the  Bible  with  regard  to  which  we  cannot  bring 
good  Trinitarian  authority  for  its  Unitarian  meaning  ;  or  in 
other  words,  there  is  not  a  single  text  which  is  not  aban- 
doned by  one  or  more  of  the  most  celebrated  Trinitarian 
theologians.  I  repeat  that  this  gives  me  great  confidence 
in  our  interpretations  of  the  Bible.  We  might  otherwise 
fear  that  our  interpretations  were  made  to  suit  ourselves,  — 
we  might  suspect  ourselves  of  unfairness. 

After  all,  however,  the  explanation  which  we  adopt  of 
particular  disputed  passages  should  be  to  a  great  extent 
determined  by  the  general  view  which  we  take  of  the  Scrip- 
ture doctrine.  *  When  a  text  is  ambiguous,  that  is,  when  it 
may  be  explained  in  accordance  either  with  the  Trinitarian 
or  Unitarian  belief,  we  should  be  guided  in  our  choice  of 
the  two  explanations  by  the  general  meaning  of  the  whole 
Bible,  it  would  not  be  right  to  set  aside  a  doctrine  which 
js  acknowledged  to  be  that  of  a  whole  book,  because  there 
ire  a  few  sentences  which  will  bear  a  different  construction. 
sSefore  proceedmg,  therefore,  to  the  examination  of  the  texts 
31  question,  let  me  again  remind  you  of  the  great  strength 
•f  argument  by  which  the  Unitarian  doctrine  concerning 
\3od  and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  has  been  proved  to  be  the 
general  \ri(i  prevailing  doctrine  of  the  Bible.     Let  me  re- 


60  OUR   LORD    JESUS   CHRIST. 

/    mind  you  that  the  Old  Testament  not  only  declares  the  Unity 
/   ,  ■   of  God,  but  that  the  express  object  of  the  dispensation  undei 

^  Moses  and  the  Prophets  was  to  establish  that  doctrine  in  the 
world  ;  that  it  was  taught  without  any  qualification,  and  re- 
ceived by  the  Jews  just  as  we  receive  it ;  that  v^hen  Christ 
came,  he  reaffirmed  the  doctrine,  using  the  same  words 
which  had  been  spoken  from  Mount  Sinai,  without  the  leas 
hint  that  they  were  to  be  understood  in  a  different  manner 
but,  on  the  contrary,  declaring  in  so  many  words,  that  the 
Father  is  the  only  true  God ;  that  the  Apostles  took  up  the 
same  instruction,  teaching  that  the  God  of  Abraham,  and  of 
Isaac,  and  of  Jacob,  "  the  God  of  their  fathers,"  was  also 
the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

I  think  that  it  will  not  be  disputed  that  this  is  the  genera] 
instruction  of  the  Bible.  If  we  are  to  modify  this  instruc- 
tion, it  must  be  because  the  texts  which  we  are  this  evening 
to  examine  require  it ;  but  if  it  can  be  shown  that  every 
one  of  them  can  be  explained,  and  has  been  explained,  even 
by  Trinitarians  themselves,  in  accordance  with  the  gener- 
al doctrine  as  above  stated,  we  shall  be  justified,  I  think,  in 
adopting  such  explanation,  and  thereby  putting  our  mmds 
at  rest. 

1.  First,  we  will  examine  several  of  those  texts  in  which 
peculiar  names  are  given  to  Jesus  Christ,  of  w^hich  tho 
principal  are  Isa.  ix.  6,    Jer.  xxiii.  5,  6,  and  Matt.  i.  23. 

r  In  these  passages  the  names  "  Wonderful,  Counsellor,  the 
mighty  God,  the  everlasting  Father,  the  Prince  of  Peace," 
"  Jehovah  our  righteousness,"  and  "  Immanuel,  or  God 
with  us,"  are  applied  to  Christ,  and  there  are  no  passages 
more  relied  upon  to  prove  his  supreme  divinity.  To  mi- 
derstand  them,  we  must  have  some  knowledge  of  the 
Scripture  usage,  in  the  application  of  such  names  to  re- 
markable  persons  or  places.     By   which   we    shall  learn. 


OUR    LORD    JESUS    CHRIST.  61 

that  the  use  of  such  names  proves  nothing  of  the  nature  of 
the  person  to  whom  they  are  given,  but  that  they  are  only 
descriptive  of  some  circumstances  attending  his  birth,  or 
the  offices  he  is  expected  to  fill. 

Nothing  is  more  common  in  the  Bible  than  such  descrip- 
tive names  as  the  following.  An  altar  was  called  by  Ja- 
cob "  El-Elohe-Israel,"  —  God,  the  God  of  Israel  ;  another 
by  Moses,  "  Jehovah-Nissi,"  —  Jehovah,  my  banner.  The 
place  where  God  provided  the  ram  instead  ot  Isaac  is 
called  ''  Jehovah-Jireh,"  —  God  will  see  or  provide.  In  the 
same  manner,  the  names  of  many  distinguished  persons  in 
the  Old  Testament,  if  translated  into  English,  have  similar 
meanings,  and,  without  a  knowledge  of  this  Hebrew  cus- 
tom, would  convey  very  false  ideas.  Elias  means  "  my 
God,"  and  you  will  remember  that  when  our  Saviour,  on 
the  cross,  cried  out,  '*  Eloi,  Eloi,"  &c.,  those  who  stood  near 
thought  that  he  was  calling  upon  Elias.  Elijah  means, 
literally,  "  my  God  Jehovah,"  and  Zedekiah,  "  the  right- 
eousness of  Jehovah."  Gabriel  means,  literally,  "  the 
strength  of  God,"  or  "  the  strong  God,"  and  it  is  worthy  of 
remark  that  the  Hebrew  words  comprising  the  name  are 
identically  the  same  as  those  which,  in  the  text  before  us, 
are  translated  "  the  mighty  God,"  — Gibor  Ael.  We  are 
accustomed  to  these  names,  and,  as  they  are  not  translated 
in  their  ordinary  use,  we  do  not  think  of  their  literal 
meaning;  but  when  just  such  names  are  applied  to  Christ, 
they  are  translated  into  English,  and  insisted  upon  as  a  lit- 
eral proof  of  his  divine  nature.  Whereas,  properly  consid- 
ered, they  prove  nothing  upon  the  subject  either  one  way  or 
the  other. 

We  proceed  now  to  a  particular  examination  of  the  texts 
in  question.     Isa.   ix.   6  :     Of  which  we  remark,  first,  that 
the  words  were   originally  spoken,  not  of  Christ,  but  of 
6 


&i  OUR    LORD    JESUS    CHRIST. 

King  Hezeklah.  The  distinguished  Hugo  Grotius,  and 
Samuel  White,  fellow  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge,  both 
of  them  Trinitarians,  take  this  view  of  it.  The  words  of 
the  latter  are  as  follows:  "The  government  shall  be  upon 
his  shoulders ;  that  is,  that  he,  King  Hezekiah,  shall  reign 
in  the  throne  of  David,  as  the  metaphor  signifies,  and  as 
the  prophet  more  fully  explains  himself  in  the  following 
verse  ;  which  cannot  be  literally  true  of  our  Saviour,  whose 
kingdom  was  not  of  this  world,  as  David's  was ;  but  in  a 
second  and  suhlimer  sense  the  expression  denotes  that  power 
which  God  devolved  on  his  Son,  of  governing  his  spiritual 
kingdom,  the  Church."  Now  we  argue,  that,  whatever  the 
names  may  indicate,  if  in  their  primary  application  they 
were  given  to  King  Hezekiah,  they  cannot  in  their  second- 
ary application  to  Christ  prove  his  Supreme  Divinity.  In 
the  phrase  "  the  mighty  God,"  the  word  translated  "  God  " 
means,  literally,   strong.      And    we    may   therefore    read 

/  "  Mighty  Potentate,"  if  we  prefer.  The  definite  article  al- 
so is  wanting  in  the  Hebrew,  so  that  it  would  be,  A  mighty 
God  or  Potentate.  This  is  the  interpretation  which  Martin 
Luther  gave,  and  he  declares  that  the  epithet  "  belongs  not 
to  the  person  of  Christ,  but  to  his  work  and  office."  Ro- 
sen muller,  one  of  the  most  learned  Orthodox  commentators, 
says :  "  It  is  evident  that  ael  denotes  strong,  powerful, 
and  is  used  in  Ezekiel  xxxi.  11  of  King  Nebuchadnezzar, 
who  is  called  ael  Goyim,  '  the  mighty  one  of  the  heathen,' 
or,  if  AEL  means  God, '  the  God  of  the  heathen.'  " 

The  phrase  "  the  everlasting  Father "  can  scarcely  be 

^  applied  to  Christ  in  a  literal  sense,  according  to  the  Trini- 
tarian system  ;  for  this  would  confound  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  Father  and  the  Son.  Accordingly  we  find  that 
Calvin  and  Grotius  translate  the  words  "  the  Father  of  the 
age,"  or  dispensation.     Bishop  Lowth,  Carlile  (m  his  work 


OUR  LORD  JESUS  CHRIST.  03 

"  Jesus  Chrisi  the  Great  God  our  Saviour"),  and  Dr.  Adam 
Clarke  translate  it,  "  Father  of  the  everlasting  age,"  and  in 
the  same  manner  a  great  many  other  Orthodox  writers. 
Such  a  rendering  we  are  willing  to  accept,  together  with  the 
meaning  which  Calvin  gave  to  the  words,  namely,  "  He 
who  i:i  always  producing  new  offspring  in  the  Church." 
But  we  prefer  the  explanation  of  Dr.  Wells,  of  the  Church 
of  Englajid,  who  says  that,  when  Christ  is  called  the  ev- 
erlasting Father,  it  means  that  he  is  the  "  author  of  our 
eternal  salvation,  and  the  Father  or  head  of  the  world  to 
o*ome,  that  is,  of  the  Gospel  state."  I  will  also  add  the  tes- 
timony of  Luther,  who  says  that  the  title  Everlasting  Father 
denotes  not  a  person,  but  his  work,  and  that  the  Hebrew 
particle  translated  "  everlasting  "  does  not  properly  signify 
eternal,  but  of  indefinite  continuance. 

We  next  refer  to  Jer.  xxiii.  6,  in  which  Christ  is  called 
"  Jehovah  our  righteousness  "  ;  but  it  so  happens  that  in 
chapter  xxxiii.  16  of  the  same  prophet,  exactly  the  same 
name  is  applied  to  the  city  of  Jerusalem.  "  In  those  days 
shall  Judah  be  saved  and  Jerusalem  dwell  safely,  and  this 
is  the  name  wherewith  she  shall  be  called,  —  Jehovah  our 
righteousness."  So  that  we  have  no  difficulty  in  either 
case.  Le  Clerc  explains  the  passage  for  us  as  follows  : 
"  The  Messiah  is  said  to  be  called  Jehovah  our  righteous- 
ness to  denote  that  in  his  days,  and  by  his  means,  God 
would,  in  a  remarkable  manner,  exhibit  proofs  of  his  own 
justice  by  punishing  the  wicked  and  defending  the  right- 
eous ;  so  in  chapter  xxxiii.  16,  Jerusalem  is  designated  by 
the  same  title,  meaning  that  God  would  cause  righteousness 
to  flourish  in  that  city,  namely,  in  the  Christian  Church." 

In  Matt.  i.  23  it  is  written,  "  They  shall  call  his  name 
Immanuel,  which,  being  interpreted,  is  God  wit  i  us."  The 
words  are  a  quotation  of  a  prophecy  from  Isa.  vii  14,  of 


y 


64  OUR    LORD   JESUS    CHRIST. 

which  Professor  Stuart,  of  Andover,  says  :  "  Originally  and 
literally  it  is  applicable  only  to  the  birth  of  a  child  within  a 
period  of  three  years  from  the  time  when  the  prophecy 
was  spoken  ;  for  how  could  the  birth  of  Jesus,  which  hap- 
pened seven  hundred  and  forty-two  years  afterwards,  be  a 
sign  to  Ahaz  that  within  three  years  his  kingdom  was  to  be 
freed  from  his  enemies  ?  Such  a  child,  it  would  seem,  was 
born  at  that  time  ;  for  in  chapter  viii.  he  is  twice  referred  \o, 
as  if  then  present,  or  at  least  then  living."  That  the  appi'i- 
cation  of  the  prophecy  to  Christ  proves  nothing  concerning 
his  nature,  I  could  bring  abundant  Trinitarian  testimony, 
but  content  myself  with  that  of  the  eminent  man  just  now 
quoted.  In  his  reply  to  Dr.  Channing,  he  says  :  "  What 
you  say  respecting  the  argument  concerning  Christ's  divine 
nature,  from  the  name  given  him  in  Matt.  i.  23,  accords 
in  the  main  with  my  views.  To  maintain  that  the  name 
Immanuel  proves  the  doctrine  in  question  is  a  fallacious 
argument,  although  many  Trinitarians  have  urged  it.  Je- 
rusalem is  called  Jehovah  our  righteousness.  Is  Jerusalem 
i  therefore  divine  ?  "  I  have  been  more  careful  in  explain- 
ing these  passages,  because  the  same  explanation  will  ap- 
ply to  other  texts,  in  which  similar  names  are  given  to  Jesus 
Christ. 

2.  An  argument  is  drawn  for  the  Supreme  Divinity  of 
/  Christ,  from  the  fact  that  similar  language  is  sometimes 
applied  to  him  and  to  God.  The  answer  in  all  such  cases 
is,  that  in  its  application  to  God  we  understand  it  in  its  high- 
est sense  ;  but  to  Christ  only  in  that  sense  which  belongs  to 
him  as  the  Son  of  God.  Thus  it  it  is  said,  "  I  am  Jehovah, 
and  beside  me  there  is  no  Saviour."  Yet  Christ  is  called 
/  our  Saviour.  Jehovah  is  called  the  Redeemer  of  Israel, 
and  Christ  is  also  called  a  Redeemer.  Such  language  gives 
as  no  trouble.     In  the  highest  sense,  all  salvation,  all  help 


OUR  LORD  JESUS  CHRIST.  65 

all  guidance,  and  all  support  come  from  God.  He  alone 
is  the  author  and  giver  of  every  good  gift,  and  thus,  in  the 
ascription  of  praise,  we  say,  "  To  the  only  wise  God,  our 
Saviour."  But  Jesus  Christ  is  also  in  a  true  and  real  sense 
our  Saviour,  our  guide,  our  supporter,  our  Redeemer.  Not 
by  his  independent  power,  indeed,  but  because.  Acts  v.  31, 
"  God  hath  exalted  him  with  his  right  hand  to  be  a  Prince 
and  a  Saviour,  to  give  repentance  to  Israel,  and  forgiveness 
of  sins."  In  the  same  manner,  many  things  are  said  to  be 
done  by  God  which  are  also  said  to  be  done  by  Christ ;  as, 
that  God  will  judge  the  world,  and  also  that  Christ  is  the 
judge  of  all.  But  this  is  explained  when  we  are  ta+<ght» 
Acts  xxii.  31,  "  That  God  will  judge  the  world  in  righteous- 
ness by  that  man  whom  he  hath  ordained  "  ;  and  so  in  all 
other  instances  of  the  same  sort.  Christ  acts  as  the  agent, 
the  representative,  the  messenger  of  God,  but  we  ascribe 
the  work  to  him,  always  remembering,  however,  that  he  does 
not  speak  of  himself.  John  vii.  16,  18.  To  the  same  effect 
I  will  quote  the  following  very  clear  language  of  Professor 
Stuart :  "  Nothing  can  be  more  erroneous  in  most  cases,  than 
to  draw  the  conclusion  that,  because  the  Scripture  asserts 
some  particular  thing  to  have  been  done  by  God,  therefore 
he  did  it  immediately,  and  no  instruments  were  employed 
by  him.  In  interpreting  the  principles  of  human  laws,  we 
say,  '  He  who  does  any  thing  by  another  does  it  himself.'  ^ 
Does  not  common-  sense  approve  of  this,  as  applied  to  the 
language  of  the  Scripture  .'*  Nothing  can  be  more  evident 
than  that  the  sacred  writers  have  expressed  themselves  in  a 
manner  which  recognizes  this  principle." 

On  the  same  principle  we  explain  those  passages  which 
teach  us  to  "  honor  the  Son  as  we  honor  the  Father,"  and 
that  "  he  who  denieth  the  Son  denieth  the  Father  also."    '•'' 
For  in  all  such  cases  the   ambassador  and  the  king,  the 
6* 


66  OUR     LORD    JESUS    CHRIST. 

principai  and  the  agent,  God  and  his  Christ,  are  one  ;  and 
accordingly  Christ  himself  said,  "  He  that  receiveth  you  re- 
ceiveth  me,  and  he  that  receiveth  me  receiveth  him  that 
sent  me." 

In  further  application  of  the  same  principle,  it  is  said  in 
Isaiah  and  Malachi,  "  The  voice  of  him  that  crieth  in  the 
wilderness.  Prepare  ye  the  way  of  the  Lord,  make  his  paths 
straight "  ;  and  again,  "  Behold  I  send  my  messenger  be- 
fore my  face  "  ;  which  words  in  Matt.  iii.  3  are  applied  to 
the  coming  of  John  the  Baptist  to  prepare  the  way  for  Jesus 
Christ ;  for  the  coming  of  Christ  as  the  messenger  of  God 
was  the  coming  of  God  himself  to  bestow  the  blessings  of 
a  new  revelation.  If  you  will  keep  this  rule  of  interpreta- 
tion in  your  mind,  namely,  that  the   same   language  will 

/  often  be  applied  directly  to  the  principal  and  also  to  the 
agent,  because  whatever  the  agent  does  the  principal  may 
be  said  to  do,  it  will  remove  much  of  the  obscurity  of  the 
sacred  writings. 

3.  There  are  a  number  of  instances  in  the  New  Testa- 
A  ment  in  which  Christ  is  said  to  have  been  worshipped,  either 

f  by  his  disciples  or  other  persons.  For  instance.  Matt. 
xxviii.  9,  when,  after  his  resurrection,  his  disciples  "  came 
and  held  him  by  the  feet  and  worshipped  him  "  ;  and  verse 
17,  "  When  they  saw  him  they  worshipped  him."  Upon  this 
passage  Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  the  great  Methodist  commenta* 
tor,  remarks  as  follows  :  "  This  kind  of  reverence  is  in  dailj 
use  among  the  Hindoos  ,  when  a  disciple  meets  a  public 
guide  in  the  streets,  he  prostrates  himself  before  him,  and, 
taking  the  dust  from  his  teacher's  feet,  rubs  it  on  his  fore- 
head, breast,"  &c.  And  Dr.  J.  P.  Smith,  an  equally  good 
authority,  says  :  "  The  prostrate  position,  which  denoted  the 
^  highest  reverence  and  respect,  is  manifestly  described,  but 
the  expression  does  not  necessarily  import  more  than  the 


OUR    LORD    JESUS    CHRIST.  67 

most  exalted  kind  of  civil  homage."  In  fad,  the  word 
*  worshipped  "  is  very  frequently  used  to  signify  respect 
and  homage,  and  so  it  is  used  in  application  to  temporal 
rulers  ;  see  Matt,  xviii.  26,  in  the  parable  of  the  creditor 
who  took  his  servant  by  the  throat,  saying.  Pay  me  thai 
thou  owest.  "  The  servant  therefore  fell  down  and  wor- 
siiipped  him,  saying,  Lord,  have  patience  with  me  and  I  will 
pay  thee  all."  Also  see  Luke  xiv.  10  :  "  Then  shalt  thou 
have  worship  in  the  presence  of  those  who  sit  at  meat  with 
thee."  We  must,  therefore,  in  all  cases  determine  by  the 
circumstances  the  nature  of  the  worship  given ;  but  with 
regard  to  the  highest  or  religious  worship,  we  have  the  com- 
mand of  Jesus  himself,  '*  Thou  shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy 
God  and  him  only  shalt  thou  serve."  ]\Iatt.  iv.  10.  I  will 
remark  that  the  word  here  translated  serve^  whenever  it 
occurs,  means  religious  worship  such  as  we  give  to  God 
only,  and  there  is  no  case  of  its  application  to  Jesus  Christ. 
There  are  two  texts  in  which  it  is  supposed  that  direct 
prayer  is  offered  to  Christ.  The  first  is  Acts  vii.  59,  at 
the  martyrdom  of  Stephen  :  "  And  they  stoned  Stephen, 
calling  upon  God,  and  saying,  Lord  Jesus,  receive  my 
spirit ! "  By  turning  to  your  Bibles,  you  will  see  that  the 
word  God  is  printed  in  italics,  from  which  we  know  that  it 
is  not  in  the  original,  but  supplied  by  the  translators.  We 
may  read,  therefore,  calling  upon  Christy  or  simply  "  calling 
out."  Now  we  are  to  remember  that  Stephen  is  repre- 
sented as  seeing  Jesus  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  and  his 
exclamation  was  like  an  appeal  made  to  one  who  was 
present.  But  apart  from  this,  there  is  nothing  in  the  words 
of  Stephen  which  every  believer  in  Christ  may  not  adopt 
in  his  dying  hour.  Our  brightest  hope  of  heaven  is  to  be 
with  him,  and  the  natural  aspiration  of  our  hearts  will  be, 
when  the  time  of  our  departure  comes,  that  he  may  receive 


i^ 


i 


Ci8  OUR    LORD    JESUS    CHRIST. 

US  into  his  fold  and  acknowledge  us  as  his  brethren.  No  one 
is  more  heartily  Unitarian  than  I  am,  but  I  think  that  such 
words  would  come  to  my  lips  as  the  natural  prompting  of 
my  heart.  So  have  I  often  heard  the  dying  Christian,  with 
heaven  already  opening  to  his  eyes,  whisper  the  name  of 
parent  or  child,  or  some  dear  friend  long  since  departed, 
as  if  communion  with  the  dead  were  already  begun. 
How  much  more  may  we  thus  speak  the  name  of  Jesus, 
with  whom  the  spiritual  bond  is  closest  of  all,  whose  inter- 
cession with  the  Father  is  for  us,  and  who  hath  gone  before 
to  the  blessed  mansions,  to  prepare  a  place  for  us,  that 
where  he  is  we  may  be  also  !  It  was  only  yesterday  that  I 
stood  by  the  bedside  of  a  dying  friend,  who,  wearied  with 
her  long-continued  suffering,  exclaimed,  "  O,  how  I  long  to 
go  home  !  O  that  Jesus  would  take  me  to  himself! "  Yet 
her  belief  is  £is  decidedly  Unitarian  as  my  own. 

Another  instance  of  what  is  thought  to  be  direct  prayer 
^  to  Jesus  Christ  is  found  2  Cor.  xii.  8  :  "  For  this  thing  I  be- 
sought the  Lord  thrice,  that  it  might  depart  from  me  ;  and 
he  said  unto  me.  My  grace  is  sufficient  for  thee,  for  my 
strength  is  made  perfect  in  weakness  ;  most  gladly  there- 
fore will  I  rather  glory  in  my  infirmities,  that  the  power  of 
Christ  may  r..  st  upon  me."  Dr.  Hammond  of  the  English 
Church  interprets  this  as  a  prayer  to  God.  But  I  think  that 
the  connection  shows  it  to  have  been  Christ  whom  Paul 
1/  addressed.  It  is  not,  however,  what  we  commonly  call 
prayer,  but  a  personal  request  to  his  master.  For  he  has 
been  giving  us  an  account  of  Christ's  appearing  to  him  in 
a  vision,  by  a  special  revelation,  and  in  that  vision,  witb 
Christ  present  before  him,  he  makes  the  petition  here 
recorded.  It  cannot  therefore  be  considered  as  an  author* 
ity  for  prayer  to  Christ,  under  ordinary  circumstances.  Our 
proper  and  only  sufficient  authority  upon  this  subject  is  in 


OUR  LORD  JESUS  CHRIST.  69 

the  words  of  Jesus  Christ  himself,  who  says,  speaking  ot 
the  time  when  he  should  no  longer  be  on  earth,  John  xvi. 
23,  *'  In  that  day  ye  shall  ask  me  nothing ;  verily,  verily,  I 
say  unto  you,  whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  the  Father  in  my 
name,  he  will  give  it  you  ;  hitherto  have  ye  asked  nothing 
in  my  name ;  ask  and  ye  shall  receive,  that  your  joy  may 
be  full." 

This  is  the  Christian  doctrine  of  prayer.  We  pray  to 
God  the  Father  only,  but  we  pray  through  Jesus  Christ,  or 
in  his  name  ;  that  is,  as  his  followers  and  disciples,  who  be- 
lieve in  his  words,  who  trust  in  his  promises,  who  receive 
the  benefit  of  his  life,  his  suffering,  and  death,  who  look  to 
him  as  our  advocate  with  the  Father,  and  who  receive 
through  him,  as  the  mediator  between  God  and  us  and  as 
the  living  head  of  his  Church,  the  spiritual  blessings  which 
are  needed  to  sustain  our-  souls  :  further  than  this  the  Scrip- 
tures do  not  authorize  us  to  go. 

The  frequent  ascriptions  of  praise  and  honor  to  Christ 
give  us  no  trouble.  To  him,  in  fact,  under  God,  we  owe  all  / 
our  spiritual  blessings  ;  and  so  long  as  we  keep  it  distinctly 
in  mind,  that  all  should  be  done  to  the  glory  of  God  the 
Father,  the  ultimate  source  of  all  blessing,  we  may  proper- 
ly ascribe  "  blessing  and  honor  and  glory  and  power,"  not 
only  '  to  Him  who  sitteth  upon  the  throne,  but  to  the  Lamb 
for  ever."  Rev.  v.  13.  You  will  observe  in  the  words  just 
quoted,  and  almost  everywhere  else  in  the  book  of  Reve- 
lation, how  clearly  the  distinction  is  kept  up  between  God  ' 
and  Christ ;  between  him  who  sits  upon  the  throne,  and  the 
Lamb.  Read  the  whole  of  the  fifth  chapter  and  it  will  ap- 
pear still  more  plainly.  There  is  no  book  of  the  New  Tes-  " 
tament  which  offers  so  great  difficulties  in  its  interpretation 
as  that  to  which  I  now  refer.  It  is  written  in  the  highest 
strain  of  poetry  and  prophetic  imagery,  and  no  two  writerd 


70  OTJR    LORD    JESUS    CHRIST. 

can  be  found  who  agree  as  to  its  exact  meaning.  I  think, 
therefore,  that  it  ought  not  to  be  used  as  a  principal  author- 
ity upon  disputed  points  of  doctrine. 

If  it  is  true  (which  we  consider  by  no  means  certain) 
that  it  is  Jesus  who  says,  Rev.  i.  11,  "I  am  Alpha  and 
Omega,"  its  explanation  is  difficult ;  for  we  can  scarcely 
I  understand  how  such  words  are  applicable  to  any  one  but 
the  Almighty.  But  the  difficulty  is  at  once  increased  and 
removed,  when  we  find  the  words  used  by  one  who  com- 
manded John  not  to  worship  him :  "  See  thou  do  it  not ; 
for  I  am  thy  fellow-servant ;  worship  God  "  ;  for  it  was  the 
same  person  who  used  these  words  who  said  directly  after, 
"  I  am  Alpha  and  Omega  ;  the  beginning  and  the  end  ;  the 
first  and  the  last."  Rev.  xxii.  8,  13.  I  can  understand 
such  language  only  by  supposing  that  Jesus  and  also  the 
angel  were  speaking  in  the  name  of  God.  In  the  same 
manner  Moses   says,  Deut.   xxix.  2,  6,  ''  I  have  led   you 

)    forty  years  in  the  wilderness ; that  ye  may  know 

that  I  am  the  Lord  your  God."  See  also  Deut.  xi.  13-  15. 
In  both  of  these  passages  Moses  used  language,  which,  if 
it  had  been  used  by  Christ,  would  be  stronger  in  proving  his 
Deity  than  any  now  quoted  for  that  purpose.  We  should 
not,  therefore,  attach  so  great  importance  to  isolated  and 
obscure  texts.  I  am  persuaded  that  it  is  better  to  look  to 
the  plainer  books  of  Scripture  for  our  chief  instruction. 

4.  The  strongest  support  of  the  Trinitarian  doctrine  con- 
cerning Christ,  and,  as  it  appears  to  most  readers,  the  great- 
est difficulty  in  the  way  of  Unitarians,  is  found  in  the  intro- 
duction to  the  Gospel  of  John ;  to  which  I  now  ask  your 
attention  for  a  few  minutes.  It  is  an  obscure  and  difficult 
passage  of  Scripture.  But  its  obscurity  arises,  chiefly,  from 
our  failing  to  consider  the  object  which  the  Apostle  had  in 
view,  and  the  circumstances  under  which  he  wrote.     Upoo 


OUR    LORD    JESUS    CHRIST.  71 

these  it  chiefly  depends  what  meaning  shall  be  given  to  the 
word  Logos,  and  therefore  to  the  whole  passage  in  ques- 
tion. It  is  commonly  supposed  that  his  object  was  to  de- 
clare that  Jesus  Christ  was  God,  the  second  person  of  the 
Trinity.  The  Logos  is  taken  as  another  term  for  Christ,  as 
if  the  Apostle  had  said,  *'  In  the  beginning  was  Jesus  Christ, 
and  Jesus  Christ  was  with  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  was  God." 

This  explanation  is  thought  by  those  who  receive  it  to 
remove  all  difficulty,  and  to  make  the  whole  passage  plain. 
But  it  is  only  because  they  are  accustomed  to  it,  and  do 
not  perceive  the  force  of  the  words  used.  In  fact  it  ex- 
presses a  direct  contradiction,  which  cannot  itself  be  ex- 
plained, except  by  saying  that  the  terms  used  have  no  dis- 
tinct or  intelligible  meaning.  When  we  say  that  James  is 
with  John,  we  cannot  take  a  plainer  way  of  saying  that 
James  and  John  are  two  separate  beings.  To  say  that 
James  is  with  John  and  that  James  is  John,  is  a  contradic- 
tion in  terms.  Why  does  not  the  same  hold  true  of  God 
and  of  Christ  ?  If  by  the  Logos  we  understand  a  personal  ^ 
existence  distinct  from  God,  we  may  say  that  the  Logos 
was  with  God,  but  not  at  the  same  time  that  the  Logos  was  - 
God.  To  say  one  is  to  deny  the  other.  We  shall  not, 
therefore,  escape  the  difficulty  of  the  passage  by  adopting 
the  Trinitarian  theory.  We  may  not  be  quite  satisfied  with 
our  own  explanation,  and  some  parts  of  it  may  continue  to 
perplex  us,  but  we  cannot  receive  an  explanation  which  so 
evidently  contradicts  itself. 

Secondly,  we  cannot  adopt  it,  because  it  also  contradicts    i 
the   Apostle's  repeated  assertions  concerning  Christ,  and    | 
his  plain  statement  of  the  object  with  which  his  Gospel  was 
written.     There  is  none  of  the  Gospels  which  is  so  full  in 
its  declarations  that  Christ  is  the  son  of  God,  not  God  him- 
self, and  it  is  in  this  Gospel  that  we  fine     ecord  of  Christ's 


*J2  OUR    LORD    JESUS    CHRIST. 

most  distinct  denial  of  the  Divine  attributes.  At  its  close, 
the  Apostle  informs  us  what  his  general  purpose  had  been, 
as  follows  (John  xx.  31):  "These  are  written  that  ye 
might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  and 
that,  believing,  ye  might  have  life  through  his  name." 
Would  he  have  so  stated  his.  purpose,  if  his  real  object  had 
been  to  prove  that  Christ  was  himself  the  Infinite  God, 
whose  Son  he  declares  him  to  be,  and  by  whom  he  was 
anointed  ?  Let  me  also  remind  you  of  his  words,  in  this 
same  first  chapter  which  is  supposed  to  teach  that  Christ  is 
God  :  "  No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time  ;  the  only-be- 
gotten Son,  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  he  hath  de- 
clared him."  This  is  the  true  doctrine,  in  accordance  with 
which  we  should  explain  the  introductory  sentences  now 
under  consideration. 

Let  us  look,  next,  at  the  literal  meaning  of  the  Greek  word 
/  Logos.  There  is  no  word  in  English  which  exactly  an- 
swers to  it.  In  Latin,  it  was  sometimes  translated  ratio,  or 
reason,  sometimes  verbum,  a  word,  or  sermo,  a  discourse. 
The  connection  alone  must  determine,  in  each  case,  which 
of  these  meanings  should  be  used.  In  the  present  case,  if 
we  translate  it  by  ratio,  reason,  it  would  mean  the  Divine 
Mind  or  the  Wisdom  of  God.  Tertullian,  one  of  the  Chris- 
tian Fathers,  whose  authority  as  a  learned  man  is  very  high, 
understood  it  in  this  way.*  The  same  meaning  was  adopt- 
ed by  Le  Clerc  and  by  Dr.  Wall,  both  of  them  Trinitarians, 
and  no  Greek  scholar  will  deny  that  such  a  translation  of 
the  word  Logos  is  strictly  correct.  If  we  prefer  it,  there- 
fore, or  if  we  think  that  this  meaning  suits  the  connection, 
we  are  at  liberty  to  adopt  it.  We  have  no  objection,  how- 
ever, to  the  translation  which  is  given  in  the  English  Bible, 

•  Tertullian.  advers   Praxeam,  Cap.  5. 


OUR    LORD    JESUS    CHRIST.  73 

if  it  is  rightly  considered  ;  for  by  the  Word  of  God  we  can 

understand  nothing  else  but  God's  power  and  wisdom,  and 
it  is  but  another  expression  for  the  Divine  Mind,  the  Spirit 
of  God,  or  God  himself.  So  when  we  read  in  the  book  of 
Psalms,  that  "  by  the  Word  of  Jehovah  the  heavens  were 
made,  and  all  the  host  of  them  by  the  breath  of  his  mouth," 
it  is  only  another  mode  of  saying  that  these  things  were 
done  by  the  power  and  wisdom  of  God,  or  by  God  himself. 
It  is  precisely  this  which  the  Apostle  John  asserts  in  the  first 
verses  of  his  Gospel ;  namely,  the  Word  of  God,  considered 
as  creating  and  upholding,  is  only  another  expression  for 
God  himself. 

But  why  did  the  Apostle  think  it  necessary  to  make  a  for- 
mal statement  of  a  truth,  so  plain  that  it  is  almost  self-evi- 
dent .'*  and  how  do  we  account  for  the  peculiar  phraseology 
which  he  used  ?  In  these  questions  consists  the  whole  difli- 
culty  of  the  case,  and  we  can  answer  them  only  by  refer- 
ring to  the  times  when  the  Apostle  wrote  and  the  particular 
doctrines  which  he  intended  to  combat. 

There  is  a  natural  tendency  in  the  human  mind  to  draw 
a  veil  between  itself  and  God.  Our  faculties  are  so  lim- 
ited, and  the  idea  of  an  Infinite  and  Omnipresent  Being, 
who  does  all  things  by  his  own  direct  power,  is  so  far 
above  our  comprehension,  that  we  often  use  words  that 
imply  an  intermediate  agency,  even  when  we  know  that 
they  are  only  a  different  way  of  saying  the  same  thing. 
Thus  we  speak  of  Nature,  of  Providence,  of  the  Laws 
of  God,  the  Spirit  and  the  Word  of  God,  almost  as  if 
they  were  agents  through  whom  God  acts,  instead  of  differ- 
ent names  or  expressions  for  the  ever-present  God  himself. 
We  are  not  deceived  by  such  terms,  and  although  tl^ey 
sometimes  have  the  effect  of  removing  God  farther  from  us, 
7 


*74  OUR    LORD    JESUS    CHRIST. 

they  are  undoubtedly  an  aid  to  our  feebleness.  But  in 
ancient  times,  when  the  education  of  the  relig  ous  world 
was  more  imperfect,  and  especially  among  the  Oriental  na- 
tions, where  imagination  gives  so  strong  a  bias  to  all  intel 
lectual  development,  such  words  very  often  come  to  be  re 
alities.  The  Wisdom,  Reason,  and  Understanding  of  God, 
his  Spirit,  his  Word,  came  to  be  considered  as  real  agencies, 
and  in  the  progress  of  time  as  personal  existences,  indis- 
tinctly defined,  but  real  and  living.  Hence  arose  serious 
and  fatal  errors.  Such  ideas,  incorporated  into  the  Chris- 
tian system,  made  it  little  better  than  a  modified  form  of 
polytheism.  The  God  in  whom  we  live  and  move  and 
have  our  being,  of  whom  and  by  whom  and  through  whom 
are  all  things,  was  no  longer  preached,  and  an  incompre- 
hensible jargon,  of  Emanations  and  ^Eons  and  the  like,  was 
substituted  ;  a  perversion  of  Gospel  truth  little  better  tha;i 
its  rejection. 

What  I  am  now  stating  is  an  historical  fact.  By  refer- 
ring to  any  good  Ecclesiastical  History  of  the  first  and 
second  centuries,  you  will  learn  that  a  system  of  phi- 
losophy, such  as  I  have  described,  originated  with  Philo, 
an  Alexandrian  Jew,  a  man  of  great  learning,  whose  influ- 
ence spread  itself  through  all  the  learned  world  of  his  age. 
Many  of  his  disciples  became  converts  to  Christianity, 
and  from  them  arose  the  sect  of  the  Gnostics,  one  of  the 
most  influential  but  pestilent  heresies  of  the  early  Christian 
Church.  They  had  their  origin  in  Apostolical  times,  al- 
though their  system  was  not  completely  matured  until  later. 
Their  head-quarters  were  in  the  city  of  Ephesus,  where, 
according  to  the  uniform  testimony  of  antiquity,  the  Gospel 
of  John  was  written.  It  is  very  difficult  to  learn  exactly 
what  they  taught,  but  it  was  something  like  the  following :  — • 


OUR    LORD    JESUS    CHRIST.  75 

''ITiey  maintained  that  the  Supreme  God  dwelt  in  the  re- 
mote heavens,  surrounded  by  chosen  spirits,  ^ons  as  they 
tailed  them,  and  gave  himself  very  little  concern  with 
what  took  place  upon  earth ;  that  the  world  was  created  by 
K.n  inferior  and  an  imperfect  being,  who  was  also  the  au- 
thor of  the  Jewish  dispensation  ;  that  Christ  was  sent  by  the 
Supreme  God  to  deliver  men  from  the  tyranny  of  this  Cre- 
Ntor,  and  from  the  yoke  of  his  law  ;  that  there  were  also 
various  created  spirits,  or  iEons,  sustaining  different  offices, 
independently,  for  the  most  part,  of  the  Supreme  Deity  ;  the 
names  of  some  of  which  iEons  were  Life,  Light,  and  par- 
ticularly the  Logos,  which  represented  the  Divine  Reason 
or  Wisdom  ;  and  that  the  iEon  Light  became  incarnate  in 
John  the  Baptist.  All  these  spiritual  existences  were  repre- 
sented as  distinct  from  each  other  and  from  the  Supreme 
God."  * 

The  existence  of  such  a  system  at  the  time  when  John 
wrote,  and  among  the  very  people  whom  he  was  seeking  to 
convert,  or  who  had  been  already  converted  to  Christ, 
would  justify  us  in  supposing  that  the  introduction  to  his 
Gospel,  which  is  so  exactly  suited  to  the  purpose,  was  in 
fact  intended  for  its  overthrow.  But  the  evidence  is  made 
complete  by  the  testimony  of  Irenaeus,  a  competent  and  un- 
impeachable witness.  He  lived  in  the  early  part  of  the 
second  century,  and  was  a  friend  and  pupil  of  Polycarp, 
who  was  a  personal  friend  of  John  himself.  In  his  work 
against  heresy,  he  says  that  the  beloved  disciple  wrote  his 
Gospel  for  the  express  purpose  of  refuting  the  false  and  ab- 
surd notions  which  the  Gnostics  were  beginning  to  spread 
in  Asia  Minor. 

*  Peabody's  Lectures. 


76  OUR    LORD    JESUS    CHRIST. 

With  these  historical  facts  to  guide  us,  we  can  without 
difficulty  learn  the  meaning  of  this  famous  passage.  It 
teaches  that  the  Logos,  the  Word  or  Wisdom  of  God,  which 
the  philosophical  Christians  thought  to  be  an  emanatior 
from  God  and  a  personal  existence  separate  from  him,  was 
only  another  name  for  God  himself.  It  never  had  a  per- 
sonal existence  separate  from  God,  but  from  the  beginning 
was  with  God  and  was  God.  (For  we  may  properly  say 
that  wisdom  is  with  God  and  that  God  is  wisdom.)  By 
him,  that  is,  by  the  Logos  of  God,  or  by  God  himself,  —  for 
the  grammatical  construction  admits  of  either  meaning,  and 
both  are  in  fact  the  same,  —  by  him  all  things  were  made. 
From  him  Life  and  Light  proceed  to  enlighten  every 
one  who  comes  into  the  world.  He  sent  John,  not  as  an 
^on  called  Light,  but  as  a  witness  of  Him  who  was  the 
true  Light.  And  the  Logos,  the  Wisdom  or  the  Word  of 
God,  which  is  God  himself,  became  flesh;  God  was  made 
manifest  in  man,  namely,  in  Jesus  Christ,  who  dwelt  among 
us,  and  we  beheld  his  glory,  as  of  the  only-begotten  Son 
of  God,  full  of  grace  and  truth. 

This  is  the  substance  of  the  Apostle's  meaning.  It  is 
suited  to  the  purpose  he  had  in  view,  and  it  agrees  with  the 
doctrine  of  his  whole  Gospel.  I  do  not  pretend  to  remove 
all  obscurity  from  the  passage,  but  I  have  no  doubt  that 
this  is,  substantially,  its  correct  interpretation.  We  under- 
stand it  as  an  assertion  of  the  absolute  unity  of  God,  of 
h.3  direct  agency  in  all  things,  and  of  the  divine  mission 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  It  therefore  confirms  our  belief 
in  Him  "  who  is  the  only  true  God,  and  in  Jesus  Christ 
whom  he  hath  sent." 

5.  The  words  contained  in  John  x.  30  are  much  relied 
upon    to  prove    the    Deity  of  Christ:    "I  and  my   Fathei^ 


OUR  LORD  JESUS  CHRIST.  77 

are  one."  We  interpret  the  words  as  meaning  Lnity  in 
counsel,  design,  and  power,  not  unity  of  substance.  I 
have  before  me  not  less  than  twenty  Trinitarian  au- 
thorities to  confirm  this  view,  from  which  I  select  the 
words  of  Calvin  and  of  Professor  Stuart,  because  their 
names  are  most  familiar  to  you.  No  one  will  suspect 
either  of  them  of  leaning  to  the  Unitarian  side  of  the 
question. 

"  In  the  present  case  it  seems  to  me  that  the  meaning 
of  '  I  and  my  Father  are  one'  is  simply,  I  and  my  Father 
are  united  in  counsel,  design,  and  power.  So  in  John  xvii. 
20,  Christ  prays  that  all  who  shall  believe  on  him  '  may  be 
one,  as  thou  Father  art  in  me  and  I  in  thee  ;  so  they  also 
may  be  one  in  us.'  See  also  Gal.  iii.  28,  and  1  Cor.  iii, 
8."  —  Professor  Stuart,  Answer  to  Channing. 

6.  1  John  V.  20 :  "  And  we  know  that  the  Son  of  God  is 
come,  and  hath  given  us  an  understanding  that  we  may 
know  Him  that  is  true ;  and  we  are  in  Him  that  is  true, 
even  in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the  true  God  and 
eternal  life."  The  word  even  you  will  find  in  italics,  and 
may  therefore  omit  it  and  read,  "  We  are  in  Him  that  is 
true,  in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ."  Of  which  expression  Cal- 
vin says,  that  "  the  Apostle  intends  to  express  the  means 
of  our  union  with  God,  as  if  he  had  said,  that  we  are  in 
God  by  Christ."  Erasmus,  Archbishop  Tillotson,  Adam 
Clarke,  and  others,  interpret  it  in  the  same  way.  Dr. 
Bloomfield  even  more  plainly :  "  We  are  in  union  with  the 
true  God  by  means  of  his  Son  Jesus  Christ."  The  words, 
"  this  is  the  true  God,"  may  grammatically  refer  either 
to  Christ,  or  to  "  Him  that  is  true."  We  rbf'er  it,  of  course 
to  God  the  Father,  who  is  the  chief  subject  of  discourse. 
In  which  construction  we  have  the  authority  of  Erasmus 
7* 


78  OUR   LORD   JESUS    CHRIST. 

Grotius,  Rosenmiiller,  and  others.    The  language  of  Grotiiis 
is  as  follows  :  — 

"  This  is  the  true  God ;  namely,  he  and  none  else  whom 
Jesus  hath  declared  to  be  the  object  of  worship.  The 
pronoun  oulos^  this,  not  unfrequently  relates  to  a  remote 
antecedent ;  as  in  Acts  vii.  19  ;  x.  6.  '  And  eternal  life  ' ; 
this  is  said  by  metonymy.  The  Apostle  means  that  God  is 
the  primary  and  chief  author  of  eternal  life.  So  also 
Christ  is  called  Life,  John  xi.  25 ;  xiv.  6,  because,  next  to 
God  the  Father,  he  is  the  cause  of  eternal  life." 

7.  Zech.  xiii.  7,  "Awake,  O  sword,  against  my  shepherd 
and  against  the  man  that  is  my  fellow,  saith  Jehovah  of 
hosts."  Here  it  is  argued,  that  Christ  is  spoken  of  as  the 
fellow  or  equal  of  God.  But  in  fact,  the  literal  meaning 
of  the  word  translated  fellow  is  "  one  with  me,"  or  near 
me,  and  implies  no  equality  at  all.  As  to  the  meaning  of 
the  word,  there  is  no  dispute  among  critics.  But  as  the 
passage  is  quoted  with  a  great  deal  of  confidence  in  many 
Trinitarian  pulpits,  it  may  be  worth  while  to  read  the  re- 
marks of  Calvin  upon  it.  "  The  word  translated  fellow 
means  an  associate,  a  neighbor,  or  a  friend,  and  whoever 
is  joined  to  us  in  authority.  I  have  no  doubt  that  by  this 
title  God  distinguishes  his  shepherds,  because  he  represent- 
ed himself  by  them  to  his  people.  The  prophet  speaks  of 
shepherds  as  God's  associates,  on  account  of  their  union 
with  him,  and  because,  as  St.  Paul  says,  they  are  fellow 
workers  and  laborers  together  with  God." 

8.  Much  reliance  is  placed  on  the  exclamation  of  Thomas 
John  XX.  28,  "  And  Thomas  answered  and  said  unto  him 
My  Lord  and  my  God."     1  am  not  sure  what  explanation 
of  these  words  is  the  true  one.     They  were  not  spoken  as 
a  confession  of  faith,  as  the  words  of  Peter  were,  when 


OUR    LORD    JESUS    CHRIST  7^ 

asked  by  Christ,  "  Whom  do  ye  say  that  I  am  ?  "  but  they 
were  spoken  by  the  most  sceptical  of  all  the  Apostles,  un- 
der the  influence  of  the  most  profound  astonishment.  But 
I  am  quite  sure  that  they  are  not  a  declaration  that  Christ 
is  the  Supreme  God,  for  this  simple  reason  :  that,  even  if 
such  a  doctrine  be  true,  neither  Thomas  nor  any  other  of 
the  twelve  had  any  knowledge  of  it  at  the  time.  "  It  may 
be  justly  doubted,"  says  Dr.  Bloomfield,  Bishop  of  London, 
"  whether  the  so  lately  incredulous,  because  prejudiced  and 
unenlightened  disciple,  had  then,  or  at  any  time  before  the 
illumination  of  the  Holy  Spirit  at  Pentecost,  any  complete 
notion  of  the  divine  nature  of  Jesus  as  forming  part  of  the 
Godhead."  Indeed,  it  can  be  clearly  proved,  and  is  ad- 
mitted by  a  great  many  Trinitarian  writers,  that  the  Apos- 
ties  had  no  conception  of  Christ's  deity  when  Thomas 
spoke.  I  therefore  adopt  the  opinion  of  the  celebrated 
Kuinoel,  whose  commentary  on  the  Scriptures  is  a  standard 
work  in  Orthodox  universities,  and  who  says,  that,  if  the 
words  are  addressed  to  Jesus,  "  Thomas  used  the  word 
(iod  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  applied  to  kings  and  judges 
(who  are  considered  as  representatives  of  Deity)  and  pre- 
eminently to  the  Messiah." 

9.  We  next  refer  to  Romans  ix.  5,  "  Whose  aie  thfe 
fathers,  and  of  whom,  as  concerning  the  flesh,  Christ  came, 
who  is  over  all,  God  blessed  for  ever.  Amen."  The  whole 
argument  against  us  in  this  passage  depends  on  the  punc- 
tuation. You  know  that  the  original  manuscripts  of  the 
New  Testament  are  without  any  punctuation.  The  sen- 
tences are  not  divided  from  each  other  by  any  marks, 
and  translators  are  obliged  to  punctuate  as  they  think  the 
sense  'equires.  Now  in  this  case,  if  we  adopt  the  punc« 
tuatior   proposed   by  Griesbach,  or  that  by  Rosenmuller 


80  OUR  LORD  JESUS  CHRIST. 

both  of  them  Trinitarians  and  eminent  in  learning,  the 
sense  is  materially  changed.  Let  the  period  be  placed 
after  the  word  all^  and  it  then  reads, "  Of  whom,  as  con- 
cerning the  flesh,  Christ  came,  who  is  over  all.  God  be 
blessed  for  ever.  "  Which  words  are  added  as  a  dox- 
ology  by  the  Apostle,  in  the  way  in  which,  in  several 
instances,  he  has  inserted  a  doxology  in  the  midst  of  a 
paragraph. 

10.  In  Acts  XX.  28,  we  read,  "  Feed  the  Church  of  God, 
which  he  hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood."  The  true 
reading  of  this  passage  is  the  "  blood  of  the  Lord  "  ;  but 
I  do  not  care  to  insist  upon  this.  The  expression  is  of 
course  to  be  understood  figuratively.  No  one  will  contend 
that  it  was  literally  the  blood  of  God.  It  can  mean  nothing 
else  than  that  God  purchased  the  Church  with  the  blood  of 
his  own  Son  Jesus  Christ,  which,  on  account  of  his  intimate 
union  with  the  Father,  may  be  figuratively  called  God's 
own  blood.  This  is  the  meaning  which  is  adopted  by  the 
celebrated  Baxter,  author  of  the  Saints'  Rest. 

IL  John  xiv.  9,  "He  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the 
Father,  and  how  sayest  thou  then.  Show  us  the  Father." 
The  meaning  of  these  words  is  sufficiently  explained  by 
the  connection  in  which  they  stand.  If  you  will  read  the 
fourteenth  chapter  through,  they  will  give  you  no  trouble. 
Christ  made  a  clear  revelation  of  God,  and  therefore  made 
known  of  the  Father  as  much  as  it  is  possible  for  us  at 
present  to  know.  So  the  words  are  explained  by  Dr. 
William  Sherlock :  "  He  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the 
Father,  that  is,  in  plain  words,  the  will  of  God  was  fully 
declared  to  the  world  by  Christ.  Thus  God  was  seen  in 
Christ."  It  is  but  another  mode  of  saying  that  God  was 
vnade  manifest  in  Christ,  —  which   leads  me   to  speak  of 


OUR    LORD    JESUS    CHRIST.  81 

another  text,  1  Tim.  iii.  16,  which  expresses  the  same  doc- 
trine :  "  And  without  controversy  great  is  the  mystery  or 
godliness ;  God  was  manifest  in  the  flesh,  justified  in  the 
spirit,  seen  of  angels,  preached  unto  the  Gentiles,  received 
up  into  glory."  It  needs  no  explanation  to  the  Unitarian 
believer,  for  that  God  was  manifest  in  Christ,  and  that  thus 
the  Wisdom  of  God,  or  his  Word,  was  made  flesh,  we 
strongly  maintain.  For  although  "  no  man  hath  at  any 
time  seen  God  himself,  yet  the  only-begotten  Son  hath 
declared  him."  The  essential  difference  still  remains  be- 
tween God,  who  is  manifested,  and  Christ,  by  whom  th« 
manifestation  is  made. 

We  have  now  examined  the  most  important  texts  which 
are  supposed  to  be  at  variance  with  the  Unitarian  belief. 
If  I  have  omitted  any,  they  are  such,  I  think,  as  are 
sufficiently  explained  by  the  connection  in  which  they 
stand.  For  we  again  say,  the  highest  terms  of  exaltation 
applied  to  Christ  give  us  no  trouble,  so  long  as  the  con- 
nection shows  that  he  received  his  exaltation,  "  because  it 
pleased  the  Father  that  in  him  all  fulness  should  dwell." 
We  may  be  at  a  loss  to  define  the  degree  of  his  au- 
thority, but  one  such  expression  as  that  proves,  beyond 
all  doubt,  that  his  authority  was  not  independent  or  su- 
preme. 

As  to  the  greater  part  of  these  texts,  I  feel  sure  that  our 
explanation  is  good  and  sufficient.  In  a  few  cases  only 
it  remains  doubtful  whether  the  Unitarian  or  Trinitarian 
explanation  is  the  most  natural.  But  even  if  there  were 
a  great  many  such  cases,  the  weight  of  evidence  which 
has  been  adduced  from  the  general  testimony  of  the  Bible 
is  enough  to  decide  us.     For  my  own  part,  my  mind  rests 


52  OUR  LORD  JESUS  CHRIST. 

npon  this  subject  without  any  doubt  or  wavering,  for  to  me 
the  meaning  of  the  Bible  seems  so  plain,  that  if  there 
were  fifty  texts  which  I  could  not  perfectly  understand, 
although  1  should  feel  the  difficulty,  they  would  not  shako 
my  faith. 


ARGUMENT    FROM    HISTORY 


WHOSE  ARE  THE  PATHEB8.  —  Romans  ix.  5. 

My  object  this  evening  is  to  show  the  argument  for  the 
Unitarian  doctrine  derived  from  Ecclesiastical  History. 

It  is  a  subject  to  which  more  importance  is  attached 
than  it  really  deserves.  For,  as  we  have  the  Bible  in  our 
own  hands,  we  can  read  the  words  of  Jesus  and  of  his 
Apostles  for  ourselves,  and  these  alone  are  enough  to  form 
our  faith.  They  are  indeed  the  only  conclusive  authority. 
To  Jesus  the  Holy  Spirit  was  given  without  measure. 
Whatever  he  declared  himself  to  be,  therefore,  we  are 
bound  to  believe ;  neither  more  nor  less.  Show  us  that 
he  laid  claim  to  be  the  Infinite  and  Supreme  God,  and  we 
will  so  receive  him ;  but  as  we  can  find  no  such  words 
from  his  lips,  but,  on  the  contrary,  repeated  and  distinct 
declarations  of  his  entire  dependence  on  God  the  Father, 
we  receive  this  doctrine,  and  shall  hold  to  it,  let  those  who 
are  called  the  Christian  Fathers  teach  what  they  may.  We 
do  not,  therefore,  regard  the  subject  of  this  evening  as 
essential  to  our  general  argument.  It  becomes  important 
chiefly  bo."ause  of  the  stress  kid  upon  it  by  others. 


84  ARGUMENT    FROM    HISTORY. 

By  the  Roman  Catholics,  the  early  traditions  of  the  Chris 
tian  Church  and  the  writings  of  the  Christian  Fathers  are 
regarded  as  the  strong  bulwarks  of  their  faith.     They  do 
not  hesitate  to  admit  that  the  leading  doctrines  of  Christian- 
ity cannot  be  proved  by  the  Bible  alone.     Let  me  quote 
some  of  their  language  to  this  effect.     "We   believe  the 
doctrine    of  a   triune  God,"   says  Cardinal  Hosius,   "  be 
cause  we  have  received  it  by  tradition,  though  not  men- 
tioned at  all  in  Scripture."  —  Conf.  Cathol.   Fidei,  Chap 
XXVII. 

"  Those  who  bind  themselves  to  Scripture  alone,  and 
who  do  not  set  up  any  other  rule  of  law  or  belief,  labor  to 
no  purpose,  and  are  conquered  by  their  own  weapons,  as 
often  as  they  join  battle  with  such  pests  [the  Unitarians], 
that  conceal  and  defend  themselves  likewise  with  the  lan- 
guage of  Scripture  alone.  And  we  know  from  history, 
that  this  frequently  happened  to  them  in  the  conferences 
and  disputes  into  which  they  entered  with  the  Photinians 
and  the  Arians."  —  Petavius,  De  Trin.  Lib.  III.  Cap.  xi.  9 ; 
Theol.  Dog.,  Vol.  II.  p.  301. 

"  That  the  Son  is  of  the  same  essence  as  the  Father,  or 
consubstantial  with  him,  is  not  manifest  in  any  part  of  sa- 
cred Scripture,  either  in  express  words,  or  by  certain  and 
immutable  deduction.  These  and  other  opinions  of  the 
Protestants  no  one  can  prove  from  the  sacred  writings, 
the  traditionary  word  of  God  being  laid  aside.  This  re- 
quest has  often  been  made,  but  no  one  has  made  it  good. 
Scripture  itself  would,  in  many  places,  have  seemed  to  ex- 
hibit the  opposite  doctrine,  unless  the  Church  had  taught  us 
otherwise."  —  Masenius,  Apud  Sandium,  pp.  9-11. 

To  the  same  purport  I  might  quote  many  other  Roman 
Catholic  authorities.    "  It  is  also  a  remarkable  fact,  that  tho 


ARGUMENT    FROM    HISTORY.  85 

Roman  Catholic  has  often  triumphed  over  his  Protestant  an- 
tagonist by  demonstrating  that  the  great  principle  of  Prctes- 
tantism,  the  right  of  individuals  to  interpret  Scripture  without 
resting  on  tradition  and  the  authority  of  the  Church,  in- 
evitably leads  to  Unitarianism.*' 

Protestant  believers  in  the  Trinity  will  not  of  course  go 
so  far  as  this,  but  even  among  them  concessions  have 
been  made  of  almost  equal  importance.  Many  of  their 
best  writers,  as  Hooker,  Bishop  Beveridge,  Bishop  Small- 
ridge,  and  even  Carlile  (author  of  the  work  "  Jesus  Christ, 
the  great  God  our  Saviour  "),  and  many  others,  admit  that 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  not  "  directly  and  explicitly 
declared,  but  a  doctrine  of  inference,  which  ought  not  to 
be  placed  on  a  footing  of  equality  with  a  doctrine  of  direct 
and  explicit  revelation."  —  Carlile,  pp.  81,  369. 

I  do  not  know  whether  to  quote  the  Oxford  tracts,  which 
were  written  by  Newman,  Pusey,  and  others  before  they 
became  Roman  Catholics,  as  Catholic  or  Protestant  author- 
ities. Newman  was  certainly  a  nominal  Protestant  when 
he  wrote  the  following  words  :  "  The  most  accurate  con- 
sideration of  the  subject  will  lead  us  to  acquiesce  in  the 
statement,  as  a  general  truth,  that  the  doctrines  in  question 
have  never  been  learned  merely  from  Scripture  ;  surely  the 
sacred  volume  was  never  intended,  and  was  not  adapted,  to 
teach  our  creed."  (Newman,  Arians  of  the  Fourth  Century 
p.  55,  quoted  in  Wiseman's  Lectures,  p.  93.)  You  may 
say,  that,  although  a  Protestant,  he  was  on  the  high-road  to 
Catholicism  and  should  not  be  quoted  as  a  Protestant  au- 
thority ;  but  I  think  that  this  was  one  thing  that  made  him 
a  Roman  Catholic,  namely,  that  he  was  not  able  to  prove 
the  doctrines  of  his  Church  by  the  Bible  alone  ;  and  there- 
fore, appealing  to  the  authority  of  the  Church  in  their  de- 
8 


86  ARGUMENT    FROM    HISTORY. 

fento,  he  came  upon  Catholic  ground,  and  step  by  s.ep 
travelled  from  Oxford  to  Rome,  almost  before  he  was 
aware  of  the  inevitable  result.  For  1  believe  it  is  strictly 
true,  that  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  ol 
the  "  Orthodox "  Church  generally,  upon  the  subject  we 
are  now  discussing,  cannot  be  consistently  held  by  those 
who  admit  the  exclusive  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  and 
the  right  of  private  judgment. 

In  some  shape  or  other  the  authority  of  the  Church  or 
of  tradition,  or  of  the  catechism  or  creed  or  prayer-book, 
must  be  brought  in,  or  the  doctrines  themselves  will  soon 
be  abandoned. 

From  considerations  such  as  these,  great  importance  is 
attached  to  the  Christian  Fathers.  Many  persons,  who  are 
really  in  doubt  whether  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  taught 
in  the  Bible,  are  held  in  its  belief  because  they  suppose  that 
It  has  been  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  from  the  very  be- 
ginning, and  therefore  must  have  been  taught  by  the  Apos- 
tles ;  and  probably  the  same  opinion  is  a  source  of  diffi- 
culty to  many  Unitarians.  For  if  it  were  true,  that  that 
doctrine  was  taught  in  the  first  two  or  three  centuries,  as 
it  is  taught  now,  we  might  have  some  trouble  in  account* 
ing  for  it.  It  would  have  been  very  strange  for  such  a 
doctrine  to  have  grown  up  all  at  once,  if  not  derived  from 
the  Apostles  themselves. 

1  shall  therefore  attempt  to  show,  and  think  that  ) 
shall  succeed  in  showing,  that  the  departure  from  the 
Unitarian  or  Evangelical  faith  was  very  gradual,  and 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as  now  taught  was  not 
established  in  the  Christian  Church  until  the  last  part  ot 
the  fourth  and  beginning  of  the  fifth  centuries.  This  I 
ehall  do,   first,  by  two   arguments   of  a    general    nature; 


ARGUMENT    FRCM    HISTORY.  87 

and  secondly  by  quotations  from  the  Christian  Fathers 
themseives. 

1.  In  the  early  ages  of  the  Church  we  find  mention  of 
two  sects,  the  Ebionites  and  Nazarenes.  They  are  some- 
times called  '•  Judaizing  Christians,''  because  they  adhered, 
the  former  strictly,  and  the  latter  more  loosely,  to  the 
Mosaic  law.  Tlie  Ebionites  believed  that  Christ  was  a 
mere  man,  and  were  always  reckoned  among  the  heretics 
by  orthodox  believers.  The  Nazarenes  "  believed  in  the 
miraculous  birth  of  Christ,  and  that  he  was  in  some  way 
united  with  the  Divine  nature  ;  they  refused  to  discard  the 
ceremonies  prescribed  by  Moses,  but  did  not  obtrude 
them  upon  the  Gentile  Christians.  They,  moreover,  rejected 
the  additions  to  the  Mosaic  ritual  made  by  the  doctors  of 
the  law  and  by  the  Pharisees."  This  sect  was  never 
COUNTED  AMONG  THE  HERETICS  in  the  first  three  centuries. 
Mosheim  informs  us  that  "  Epiphanius,  a  writer  of  the 
fourth  century,  of  no  great  fidelity  or  accuracy  of  judg- 
ment, was  the  first  who  branded  them  as  heretics."  *  But 
these  Nazarenes  were  Unitarians,  beyond  all  doubt,  —  and 
would  they  have  escaped  the  brand  of  heresy,  if  the  ma- 
jority of  believers  had  been  Trinitarians  ? 

What  I  have  now  said  is  upon  the  authority  of  Mosheim 
and  Neander,  both  of  them  Trinitarian  writers  of  high  re- 
pute. My  own  belief  is,  that  the  Nazarenes  were  the  prim- 
itive Christians,  converts  from  Judaism,  who  retained  a  little 
too  much  of  their  Jewish  predilections,  just  as  the  Apostle 
Peter  did  in  his  early  ministry.  But  in  other  respects  they 
were  primitive  Gospel  Christians.  I  think  so,  partly  be« 
cause  they  were  in  such  good  repute  in  the  Christian  world 

•  Mosheim,  Eccl.  Hist.,  Book  I.  Cent.  2,  Pait  2,  Chap  5,  ^  2,  note  3 


88  ARGUMENT    FROM    HISTORY. 

that  even  their  Judaizing  tendencies  did  not  separate  them 
from  the  orthodox  communion,  and  partly  because  their 
name  Is  that  which  was  given  (at  first  by  way  of  reproach) 
to  all  the  disciples  of  Christ,  because  he  was  a  citizen  of 
Nazareth.     Acts  xxiv.  5. 

Secondly.  We  derive  a  second  general  proof  from 
Ecclesiastical  History  in  the  creeds  or  confessions  of  faith 
used  in  the  first  four  centuries.  By  their  examination,  we 
shall  find  there  was  a  gradual  departure  from  the  simplicity 
that  is  in  Christ,  and  an  equal  departure  from  the  Unitarian 
belief.  The  confession  of  faith  used  by  the  Apostles 
themselves,  as  recorded  in  the  book  of  Acts,  was  very- 
brief  and  simple.  "  I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son 
of  God."  Acts  viii.  37.  This  creed  was  the  rock  on 
which  our  Saviour  assured  Peter  that  he  would  build  his 
Church.  Matt.  xvi.  16.  It  was  this  which  the  Apostle 
Peter  taught  to  the  assembled  Jews  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost. Acts  ii.  36.  The  Apostle  John  wrote  his  Gospel  for 
the  special  purpose  of  inculcating  it.  John  xx,  31.  And 
when  Paul  was  miraculously  converted  to  a  knowledge 
of  the  truth,  the  great  burden  of  his  preaching  was,  to 
convince  his  hearers  of  the  same.     Acts  ix.  22. 

When  converts  were  made  from  among  the  heathens, 
another  article  was  necessarily  added,  expressive  of  the 
belief  in  One  God,  even  the  Father.  Hence  was  formed, 
with  some  further  additions,  what  is  called  the  Apostles' 
Creed.  It  was  not  written  by  the  Apostles  themselves, 
but  it  was  in  general  use  in  the  first  three  centuries,  and 
was  regarded  as  containing  the  whole  apostolical  faith. 
Mow  we  contend  that  it  is  nothing  more  or  less  than  a 
Jnitarian  creed.  We  can  adopt  it,  word  for  word,  with 
mt  any  explanation  :  — 


ARGUMENT    FROM    HISTORY.  89 

**I  believe  in  God  the  Father  Almighty,  and  in  Jesus 
Christ,  his  only  Son,  our  Lord  ;  who  was,  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary  ;  under  Pontius  Pilate  he 
was  crucified  and  buried ;  the  third  day  he  rose  from  the 
dead ;  he  ascended  into  heaven  and  sitteth  on  the  right 
hand  of  the  Father ;  from  thence  he  shall  come  to  judge 
the  quick  and  the  dead.  I  believe  in  the  Holy  Spirit ;  the 
holy  Church ;  the  forgiveness  of  sins ;  the  resurrection 
of  the  body,  and  life  everlasting." 

This  is  the  exact  form  in  which  the  creed  was  used  in  the 
second,  third,  and  fourth  centuries,  and  it  was  considered 
the  sufficient  rule  of  faith  in  the  Church  until  the  year  325. 
I  think  that  it  would  not  have  been  regarded  as  sufficient 
if  the  Trinitarian  belief  had  generally  prevailed.  It  would 
not  be  regarded  alone  as  sufficient  in  the  present  day.  It 
would  not  be  considered  safe  in  the  Episcopal  and  Roman 
Catholic  Churches  to  discard  the  Nicene  and  Athanasian 
Creeds  and  to  retain  this  as  the  only  confession  of  faith ; 
nor  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  would  it  be  considered  safe 
to  adopt  it,  instead  of  the  Assembly's  Catechism.  But  it 
satisfies  us,  as  Unitarians,  and  if  we  thought  it  right  to  use 
any  confession  of  faiih,  other  than  the  New  Testament 
itself,  I  know  of  none  which  we  could  adopt  more  heartily 
than  this  which  is  called  the  Apostles'  Creed. 

As  corruptions  of  doctrine  prevailed  more  and  more,  the 
Apostles'  Creed  was  found  to  be  insufficient.  At  the  Coun- 
cil of  Nice,  A.  D.  325,  another  creed  was  established.  It 
was  adopted  against  great  opposition,  although  the  whole 
authority  of  the  Emperor  Constantino  was  exerted,  and  it 
was  more  than  fifty  years  before  it  was  firmly  established 
ji  the  Church  ;  so  reluctantly  did  the  Christian  world  depart 
from  its  first  formulas  of  faith.  It  is  also  to  be  especially 
8* 


90  ARGUMENT    FROM    HISTORY. 

remarked,  that  the  Nicene  Creed,  as  at  first  adopted,  does 
not  teach  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  for  it  says  nothing  of 
the  personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Nor  does  it  teach  the 
absolute  equality  of  Christ  with  the  Father,  although  it 
uses  unscriptural  language,  such  as  a  Unitarian  cannot 
adopt.  The  idea  of  derivation  of  the  Son  from  the  Father 
is  still  retained.  He  is  the  Son  of  God,  the  begotten  of 
the  Father,  God  of  God,  —  that  is,  derived  from  God,  not 
absolutely  God  in  the  same  sense  with  the  Father.  If  you 
will  examine  the  history  of  the  Council  of  Nice,  you  will 
find  that  this  is  the  meaning  then  attached  to  the  words.* 

The  first  creed  in  which  the  Trinitarian  faith  is  stated, 
as  now  received,  is  the  Athanasian  Creed.  It  was  not  com- 
posed by  Athanasius,  but  by  some  unknown  author  in  the 
fifth  century.  It  is  such  a  creed  as  was  needed  in  the 
Church,  after  it  had  completely  abandoned  the  Unitarian 
faith  ;  and  it  is  a  strong  argument  in  our  favor,  that  no  such 
creed  is  to  be  found  until  the  fifth  century,  a  time  when 
corruptions  of  every  sort  abounded.  You  will  thus  per- 
ceive how  gradually  the  transition  was  made,  step  by  step, 
and  "  as  the  first  creed  is  avowedly  the  one  held  by  Unita- 
rians, and  the  last  one  held  by  the  Trinitarians,  the  infer- 
ence is  irresistible,  that  the  Church,  which  was  Unitarian  in 
the  beginning,  gradually  became  Trinitarian." 

2.  Having  given  these  two  general  arguments,  from  un- 
disputed facts  in  the  history  of  the  Church,  I  now  proceed 
to  give  several  quotations  from  the  early  Fathers.  Among 
those  of  the  highest  authority,  and  whose  names  will  be 
familiar  to  you,  are  .Tustin  the  Martyr,  Irenceus,  Clemen* 
of  Rome,  Clemens  Alexandrinus,   Origen,  and  Eusebius 


See  Mosheim's  Ecclesiastical  History. 


ARGUMENT    FROM    HISTORY  91 

These  are  the  most  higlily  esteemed  of  the  Christian  Fa- 
thers before  the  Council  of  Nice,  and  they  all  concur  in 
giving  Unitarian  testimony. 

Clement  of  Rome,  a  personal  friend  of  Paul,  mentioned 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  (Phil.  iv.  3,)  calls  Jesus 
"  the  sceptre  of  the  majesty  of  God  "  ;  and  we  find  near 
the  close  of  his  Letter  to  the  Corinthians  the  following  dox- 
ology,  which  is  such  as  a  Unitarian  would  have  written  :  — 
*'  Now  God,  the  inspector  of  all  things,  the  Father  of  all 
spirits,  and  the  Lord  of  all  flesh,  who  has  chosen  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  and  us  by  him  to  be  his  peculiar  people,  grant 
to  every  soul  of  man  that  calleth  upon  His  great  and  holy 
name,  faith,  fear,  peace,  long- suffering,  patience,  temper- 
ance, holiness,  and  sobriety,  unto  all  well  pleasing  in  his 
sight,  through  our  high  priest  and  protector  Christ  Jesus,  by 
whom  be  glory  and  majesty  and  power  and  honor  unto 
Him  now  and  for  ever."  Again  he  says,  "  Have  we  not 
all  one  God,  and  one  Christ,  and  one  spirit  of  grace  poured 
upon  us  all  ?  "  which  is  exactly  the  language  of  the  Apos- 
tle Paul  himself,  with  whom  he  was  contemporary. 

Justin  Martyr,  who  addressed  a  defence  of  Christian- 
ity to  Antoninus  Pius,  about  the  year  140,  was  among  the 
first  to  use  that  language  concerning  Christ  which  after- 
wards grew  into  the  doctrine  of  hi?  supreme  divinity  and 
holds  a  high  rank  among  the  Orthodox  Fathers ;  he  has  this 
language  concerning  Christ :  —  "  The  Father  is  the  author 
to  him,  both  of  his  existence  and  of  his  being  powerful 
and  of  his  being  Lord  and  God."  You  will  observe  that 
Christ  is  here  called  God,  but  the  connection  shows  that  it 
is  in  a  subordinate  sense.  In  another  place  he  says, 
"  He  was  subi ordinate  to  the  Father,  and  a  minister  to  hw 
will." 


92  ARGUMENT    FROM    HISTORY. 

Iren^us,  who  wrote  a  large  work  upon  the  subject  of 
Heresies,  A.  D.  172,  says :  "  All  the  Evangelists  have  de 
livered  to  us  the  doctrine  of  one  God  and  one  Christ,  the 
Son  of  God";  invoking  .he  Father,  he  calls  him  "the  only 
(rod,"  and  according  to  several  of  the  most  considerable  of 
the  early  Christian  writers,  a  common  epithet  b\  vhich  the 
Father  is  distinguished  from  the  Son  is,  that  he  alone  is 
Autotheos,  or  God  of  himself. 

Clemens  Alexandrinus  calls  the  Father  alone  "with- 
out beginning,"  and  immediately  after  characterizes  the 
Son  as  "the  beginning  and  the  first-fruits  of  things,  from 
whom  we  must  learn  the  Father  of  all."  He  also  says, 
"The  Mediator  performs  the  will  of  the  Father;  the  word 
is  the  Mediator,  being  common  to  both,  the  seal  of  God, 
and  the  Saviour  of  men,  God's  servant,  and  our  instruc- 
ror." 

Tertullian  expressly  says,  "  That  God  was  not  always 
a  Father  or  a  Judge ;  since  he  could  not  be  a  Father 
oefore  he  had  a  son,  nor  a  Judge  before  there  was  sin,  and 
there  was  a  time,  when  both  sin,  and  the  Son,  which  made 
God  to  be  a  Judge  and  a  Father,  were  not.'''' 

Origen,  the  most  learned  of  the  Fathers,  wrote  about 
the  year  225 ;  he  says,  "  The  Father  only  is  '  the  Good,' 
and  the  Saviour,  as  he  is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,  so 
is  he  the  image  of  his  goodness."  Again  he  says,  "  If  we 
know  what  prayer  is,  we  must  not  pray  to  any  created 
being,  not  to  Christ  himself,  but  only  to  God  the  Father  of 
all,  to  whom  our  Saviour  himself  prayed."  "  We  are  not 
to  pray  to  a  brother,  who  has  the  same  father  with  our- 
selves ;  Jesus  himself  saying,  that  we  must  pray  to  the 
Father,  through  the  Son."  Yet  this  same  Origen  frequent- 
ly calls  Christ  God,  although  in  a  subordinate  sense,     Foi 


ARGUMENT    FROM    HISTORl.  93 

when  accused  of  believing  in  two  Gods,  he  explained  him- 
self as  follows  :  —  "  He  who  is  God  of  himself  is  The  God  ; 
for  which  reason  he  says  in  his  prayer  to  the  Father,  that 
they  may  know  Thee  the  only  true  God  ;  but  whatever  is 
God  besides  him,  (who  is  so  of  himself,)  being  God  only 
by  a  communication  of  his  divinity,  cannot  so  properly  be 
called  The  God,  but  rather  A  God,"  or  Divine. 

Such  language  is  very  common  until  the  beginning  of 
the  fifth  century  ;  and  whenever  Christ  is  called  God  before 
that  time,  the  word  is  to  be  understood  in  the  sense  in 
which  Origen  used  it.  Thus  Arnobius  says,  "  Christ,  a 
God  under  the  form  of  a  man,  speaking  by  the  order  of 
the  principal  God."  Again,  "  Then  at  length  did  God  Al 
mighty,  the  only  God,  send  Christ."  And  Lactantius 
says,  "  Christ  taught  that  there  is  one  God,  and  that  he 
alone  ought  to  be  worshipped ;  neither  did  he  ever  call  him- 
self God  ;  because  he  would  not  have  been  true  to  his  trust, 
if,  being  sent  to  take  away  Gods  and  assert  One,  he  had 
introduced  another  besides  that  one.  Because  he  assumed 
nothing  at  all  to  himself,  he  received  the  dignity  of  perpet- 
ual Priest,  the  honor  of  Sovereign  King,  the  power  of  a 
Judge,  and  the  name  of  God." 

I  shall  quote  but  one  other  authority,  Eusebius,  the 
father  of  ecclesiastical  histot-  who  wrote  about  the  year 
320.  He  says,  "  There  is  <iie  God  and  the  only-begotten 
comes  from  him."  "  Christ  being  neither  the  Supreme 
God,  nor  an  angel,  is  of  a  middle  nature  between  them  ; 
and  being  ne'ther  the  Supreme  God  nor  a  man,  but  a  Me- 
diator, is  in  the  middle  between  them,  the  only-begotten 
Son  of  God."  "  Christ  the  only-begotten  Son  of  God,  and 
the  first-born  of  every  creature,  teaches  us  to  call  his  Fa« 
her  the  true  God,  and  commands  us  to  worship  him  only  " 

▼OT..  XXVI  — NO.  291.  2 


94  ARGUMENT    FROM    HISTORY. 

These  quotations  are,  I  think,  plain  and  cone.  Ui*«<»-  I 
might  multiply  them  to  a  great  extent,  if  needful.  But 
these  are  enough  for  our  present  purpose,  which  is  to  show 
that  the  changes  in  Christianity  were  very  gradual,  from 
the  plain  and  intelligible  doctrine  taught  by  Christ  and  hia 
Apostles,  to  the  difficult  and  unscriptural  doctrines  of  the 
Athanasian  Creed. 

The  chief  source  of  these  changes  or  corruptions  was 
the  Platonic  philosophy.  Justin  Martyr,  Tertullian,  and 
nearly  all  of  the  early  Christian  Fathers,  were  Platnnista 
before  they  were  Christians.  They  brought  into  their  new 
religion  as  much  of  their  old  philosophy  as  they  could. 
They  thus  ingrafted  many  ideas  borrowed  from  Plotinus, 
Porphyry,  Proclus,  and  other  Platonists  of  that  age  ;  and 
what  was  equally  bad,  they  applied  Platonic  language  to 
the  expression  of  their  Christian  faith,  by  which  great  con- 
fusion of  ideas  was  introduced.  Among  the  terms  thus 
borrowed  was  the  Greek  word  Trias,  used  by  the  Platonic 
philosophers  to  express  some  subtile  distinction  in  the  divine 
nature  usually  called  the  Platonic  trinity.  It  was  not  a  dis- 
tinction of  persons  properly  so  called,  nor  is  it  easy  to  say 
exactly  what  it  did  mean.  The  word  was  first  introduced 
into  the  discussion  of  the  Godhead  among  Christians  by 
Theophilus  of  Antioch,  in  the  second  century,  and  was 
afterwards  used  by  Origen  in  the  third  century.  It  was 
translated  into  the  Latin  by  Tertullian,  about  the  year  200, 
by  the  word  Trinitas,  of  which  the  English  word  Trinity 
is  the  exact  translation.  Many  other  words  in  the  newly 
invented  phraseology  came  from  the  same  source,  and 
many  peculiar  ideas  concerning  the  Logos,  or  Word  of 
God.  I  shall  not  trace  them  now ;  but  to  show  the  extent 
to  which  "  Orthodox  "  Christians  of  later  times,  when  the 


ARGUMENT    FROM    HISTORY.  95 

Trinity  was  becoming  established,  considered  themselves 
indebted  to  the  Platonic  philosophy,  I  will  quote  one  sen- 
te  ice  from  the  celebrated  Augustine.  He  says,  that  he 
*'  was  in  the  dark  with  regard  to  the  Trinity  until  he  found 
the  true  doctrine  concerning  the  divine  word,  in  a  Latin 
translation  of  some  Platonic  writings,  which  the  Providence 
of  God  had  thrown  in  his  way." 

I  do  not  suppose  that  any  one  will  accuse  me  of  inten- 
tional unfairness,  in  the  representation  now  made  of  the 
Christian  Fathers.  I  have  not  claimed  any  one  of  them  as 
being  what  we  would  call  a  sound  Unitarian.  The  best  of 
them  used  language  and  inculcated  ideas  which  came  from 
the  Platonic  school  quite  as  much  as  from  Christ.  All  that 
I  contend  for  is  this :  that  the  farther  we  go  back,  the  near- 
er we  come  to  the  true  doctrine  which  is  life  eternal,  name- 
ly, "  to  know  the  Father,  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus 
Christ  whom  he  has  sent."  There  is  no  proof  whatever, 
that  what  is  now  called  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was  in 
existence  before  the  Council  of  Nice.  To  this  effect  I  will 
quote  the  authority  of  George  Christian  Knapp  an  eminent 
Trinitarian  writer,  whose  "  Lectures  on  Christian  Theolo- 
gy," as  translated  by  Leonard  Woods,  Jr.,  are  a  standard 
work  with  Trinitarian  believers.  After  a  full  and  learnea 
discussion  of  the  whole  subject,  he  distinctly  admits  that 
it  is  "  impossible  to  prove  the  agreement  of  the  earliest 
Christian  writers  with  the  common  Orthodox  doctrine 
as  established  in  the  fourth  century."  Vol.  I.  pp.  294, 
299,  &c. 

Again  he  says,  "  It  is  obvious,  that  the  Unity ^  of  which 
these  philosophical  Fathers  speak,  is  nothing  more  than 
unanimity^  agreement,  correspondence  in  feelings,  consent 
in  will,  in  power,  and  in  the  application  of  power  to  par^ic- 


96  ARGUMENT    FROM    HISTORY. 

ilar  objects.  They  do  not  mean  by  the  use  of  the  word 
to  signify  that  the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit  were  God,  in  the 
full  meaning  of  the  word,  and  in  the  same  sense  in  which 
the  Father  is  God.  In  short,  these  philosophical  Christians 
asserted  rather  the  divineness  of  the  Son  and  the  Spirit, 
and  their  divine  origin,  than  their  equal  deity  with  the 
Father.  Thus  it  is  obvious,  that  they  entertained  far  differ- 
ent views  of  the  Divinity  of  the  Son  and  Spirit,  of  whicli 
they  often  speak,  than  we  do  at  the  present  time."  "  In- 
deed, the  belief  in  the  subordination  of  the  Son  to  the 
Father,  for  which  Arianism  was  the  later  name,  was  com- 
monly adopted  by  most  of  those  Fathers  of  the  second  and 
third  centuries,  who  assented  in  general  to  the  philosophy 
of  Plato.  And  had  not  Divine  Providence  interposed  in  a 
special  manner,  there  is  reason  to  think  it  would  have  been 
the  established  doctrine  of  the  Church."  And  again,  "  With 
regard  to  the  Holy  Spirit  more  particularly,  we  may  remark 
that,  during  the  three  first  centuries  of  the  Christian  era 
there  was  nothing  decided  by  ecclesiastical  authority  re- 
specting his  nature,  the  characteristics  of  his  person,  or  his 
relation  to  the  Father  and  the  Son.  Nor  was  any  thing 
more  definite  established  at  the  Council  of  Nice.  To 
believe  in  the  Holy  Spirit  was  all  that  was  required."  —  lb, 
p.  313. 

Such  is  the  fact  concerning  the  Fathers  of  the  first  three 
centuries.  The  writer  just  quoted  accounts  for  it,  being 
himself  a  Trinitarian,  by  saying  that  the  true  doctrine  was 
corrupted  by  the  infusion  of  the  Platonic  ideas.  But  it 
that  true  doctrine  had  been  the  Trinity,  we  should  find  it 
more  distinctly  stated  the  farther  we  go  back  in  the  record  ; 
of  which  the  exact  contrary  is  true.  The  earliest  writera 
ire  the  most  distinctly  Unitarian,  a''*d  in  proportion  as  the 


ARGUMl.NT    FROM    HISTORY.  97 

Platonic  philosophy  came  in,  there  was  a  gradual,  but  rapid 
departure  from  the  truth,  until,  after  long  and  violent  strug- 
gles, the  Christian  world  settled  down  into  the  Athanasian 
Creed.  It  was  undoubtedly  by  the  permission  of  Divine 
Providence,  but  it  was  through  the  direct  influence  of  the 
ci\  il  power,  and  the  result  of  the  most  terrible  persecutions. 

From  that  time  until  the  sixteenth  century,  comparative 
darkness  was  over  the  face  of  the  Christian  world.  But  no 
sooner  was  the  light_  of  the  Reformation  kindled,  than  the 
Unitarian  doctrine  again  appeared.  Resisted  alike  by 
Catholic  and  Protestant,  it  was  held  at  the  peril  of  a  man's 
life  ;  yet  many  were  found  to  profess  it.  In  Geneva, 
Michael  Servetus  was  burned  to  death,  at  the  instigation 
and  by  the  authority  of  Calvin,  who  thereby  gave  another 
proof  that  ''  the  blood  of  the  martyr  is  the  seed  of  the 
Church,"  for  Geneva  is  now  one  of  the  strongholds  of  th«J 
Unitarian  faith. 

We  might  name  many  others,  in  Germany,  in  France, 
and  in  England,  who  bore  a  like  testimony  ;  for  from  that 
time  to  this  our  faith  has  never  been  without  its  martyrs 
and  faithful  confessors.  Nor  have  we  any  reason  to  be 
ashamed  of  those  who  have  borne  our  name.  They  have 
been  comparatively  few,  for  the  doctrine  has  been  unpopu- 
lar and  opposed  by  all  the  strength  of  the  Christian  world. 
But  although  until  modern  times  they  were  few  in  number, 
they  have  been  great  in  intellect,  profound  in  learning,  and 
eminent  in  piety.  John  Milton,  England's  great  poet ;  Sir 
Isaac  Newton,  her  greatest  philosopher ;  John  Locke,  her 
profoundest  metaphysician;  Nathaniel  Lardner,  author  of 
the  most  learned  work  on  Christian  evidences  ever  written, — 
were  all  of  theni  close  students  of  the  Scripture,  and  all  of 
them  believers  in  the  Divine  Unity  as  we  receive  it.  Even 
9 


98  ARGUMENT    FROM    HISTORY. 

Dr.  Isaac  Watts,  whose  hymns  are  the  music  of  every 
church,  became  in  the  last  years  of  his  life  a  Unitarian.  If 
great  names  could  support  a  cause,  these  would  do  it.  We 
might  add  to  them  many  others  of  the  living  and  the  dead, 
equally  good.  But  we  do  not  rely  on  such  arguments. 
We  appeal  to  the  Sacred  Scriptures  alone,  to  the  glorious 
company  of  the  Aposdes  and  to  Christ  their  living  head. 
Yet  surely  we  may  be  pardoned,  when  we  hear  our  Church 
vilified  and  ourselves  excluded  from  the  Christian  com- 
munion, if  we  remind  our  opponents  that  so  many  of  the 
names  of  which  Christendom  is  most  proud  are  found  in  the 
Unitarian  ranks. 

In  the  present  day,  we  have  every  reason  to  be  satisfied 
with  the  progress  of  our  faith.  It  is  extending  itself  far 
more  rapidly  than  most  persons  are  aware  ;  not  only  by  the 
growth  of  Unitarian  societies,  so  called,  but  by  the  diffusion 
of  Unitarian  ideas  everywhere.  So  far  as  they  are  true, 
we  hope  that  they  will  continue  to  prevail  more  and  more. 
If  they  are  untrue,  if  they  are  a  perversion  of  God's  word, 
we  hope  that  they  may  soon  pass  away.  If  we  hold  error, 
we  do  so  ignorantly,  for  we  honestly  believe  that  we  hold 
the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus. 

I  will  therefore  close  this  sermon  in  the  words,  almost 
the  dying  words,  of  Dr.  Watts,  in  his  solemn  address  to  the 
Deity.  As  sincere  inquirers  after  Scriptural  truth,  we  may 
adopt  them  as  our  own. 
•  "  Dear  and  blessed  God  !  hadst  thou  been  pleased,  in  any 
ore  plain  Scripture,  to  have  informed  me  which  of  the  dif- 
ferent opinions  about  the  Holy  Trinity,  among  the  contend- 
ing parties  of  Christians,  had  been  true,  thou  knowest  with 
how  much  zeal,  satisfaction,  and  joy,  my  unbiassed  heart 
would   have  opened  itself  to  receive  and  embrace  the  di- 


ARGUMENT    FROM    HISTORY.  99 

vine  discovery.  Hadst  thou  told  me  plainly,  in  any  single 
text,  that  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit  are  three  real 
distinct  persons  in  thy  Divine  nature,  I  had  never  suffered 
myself  to  be  bewildered  in  so  many  doubts,  nor  embar- 
rassed with  so  many  strong  fears  of  assenting  to  the  mere 
inventions  of  men,  instead  of  Divine  doctrine ;  but  I  should 
have  humbly  and  immediately  accepted  thy  words,  so  far 
as  It  was  possible  for  me  to  understand  them,  as  the  only 
rule  of  my  faith.  Or  hadst  thou  been  pleased  so  to  ex- 
press and  include  this  proposition  in  the  several  scattered 
parts  of  thy  book,  from  whence  my  reason  and  conscience 
might  with  ease  find  out  and  with  certainty  infer  this  doc- 
trine, I  should  have  joyfully  employed  all  my  reasoning 
powers,  with  their  utmost  skill  and  activity,  to  have  found 
out  this  inference,  and  ingrafted  it  into  my  soul." 

"  Thou  hast  taught  me.  Holy  Father,  by  thy  prophets, 
that  the  way  of  holiness  in  the  times  of  the  Gospel,  or  un- 
der the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah,  shall  be  a  highway,  a  plain 
and  easy  path  ;  so  that  the  wayfaring  man,  or  the  stranger, 
*  though  a  fool,  shall  not  err  therein.'  And  thou  hast  called 
the  poor  and  the  ignorant,  the  mean  and  the  foolish  things 
of  this  world,  to  the  knowledge  of  thyself  and  thy  Son, 
and  taught  them  to  receive  and  partake  of  the  salvation 
which  thou  hast  provided.  But  how  can  such  weak  crea- 
tures ever  take  in  so  strange,  so  difficult,  and  so  abstruse  a 
doctrine  as  this,  in  the  explication  and  defence  whereof 
multitudes  of  men,  even  men  of  learning  and  piety,  have 
lost  themselves  in  infinite  subtilties  of  dispute,  and  endless 
mazes  of  darkness  .'  And  can  this  strange  and  perplexing 
notion  of  three  real  persons  going  to  make  up  one  true  God 
be  so  necessary  and  so  important  a  part  of  that  Christian 
docti'ine,  which,  in.the  Old  Testament  and  the  New,  is  rep- 


100  ARGUMENT    FROM    HISTORY. 

resented  as  so  plain  and  so  easy,  even  to  the  meanest  un- 
derstandings ? " 

Such  were  the  last  thoughts  of  a  pious  and  learned  man, 
after  more  than  twenty  years  of  examination  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. They  are  full  of  instruction  to  us,  and  well  calculat- 
ed to  confirm  us  in  our  present  belief.  If  such  a  man  as 
Dr.  Watts  was  forced  out  of  Trinitarianism  by  prayerful 
and  conscientious  study  of  the  Bible,  we,  as  Unitarians, 
have  reason  to  thank  God  and  take  courage. 


i 


THE  ATONEMENT. 


FOS  IP,  WHEN  WE  WERE  ENEMIES,  WB  WERE  RECOKCILED  TO 
GOD  BY  THE  DEATH  OF  HIS  SON,  MUCH  MORE,  BEING  RECONCILED, 
WE  SHALL  BE  SAVED  BT  HIS  LIFE  J  AND  NOT  ONLY  SO,  BUT  WB 
ALSO  JOY  IN  GOD  THROUGH  OUR  LORD  JESUS  CHRIST,  BY  WHOM 
WB   HAVE   NOW  RECEIVED   THE   ATONEMENT.  —  RomanS  V.  10,  11. 

The  word  which  is  translated  reconcile  in  the  tenth 
verse,  is  translated  atone  in  the  eleventh.  Of  course, 
therefore,  the  meaning  is  the  same.  The  two  words  were 
used  by  the  translators  as  exactly  synonymous,  and  the 
word  Atonement  was  printed  in  the  first  editions  of  the 
English  Bible,  At-one-ment.  It  is  used  in  the  same  man- 
ner by  other  writers  in  the  time  of  James  I.,  so  that  its 
meaning  is  well  established,  and  as  this  is  the  only  passage 
in  the  New  Testament  where  it  occurs,  we  are  authorized 
to  say  that  the  doctrine  of  Atonement  and  the  doctrine  of 
Reconciliation  are  the  same  thing.  U  we  so  regard  it, 
this  is  the  great  doctrine  of  religion.  It  is  the  substance 
of  religion  itself.  Other  truths  may  be  important,  but  they 
are  so  only  as  they  are  subsidiary  to  this.  In  a  practical 
point  of  view,  they  concern  us  only  as  they  teach  us  how 
to  be  reconciled  to  God,  and  help  us  in  becoming  so.     Or, 

in  other  words,  all  religious  truth  is  important  in  proper* 
9* 


102  THE    ATONEMENT. 

tion  as  it  shov/s  to  sinners  the  way  of  salvation,  and  helps 
them  ta  walk  therein  until  salvation  is  attained. 

The  necessity  of  reconciliation  rests  upon  the  fact  that 
we  are  sinners.  "  God  made  man  upright,  and  he  has 
sought  out  many  inventions."  "  For  there  is  not  a  just 
man  upon  earth,  that  doeth  good,  and  sinneth  not."  How 
this  came  to  pass  is  not  here  the  material  question.  The 
fact  is  undeniable,  and  from  it  comes  the  necessity  of  the 
Gospel  redemption.  If  there  is  any  man  who  has  com- 
mitted no  sin,  for  him  the  mission  of  Christ  has  no  personal 
interest.  "  God  was  in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  to 
himself,"  but  where  there  has  been  no  rebellion,  there 
can  be  no  reconciliation.  **They  that  are  whole  need  not 
a  physician,  but  they  that  are  sick"  ;  and  therefore  Chris: 
said,  that  "  he  came  not  to  call  the  righteous,  but  sinners, 
to  repentance."  It  is  because  we  feel  ourselves  to  be 
sinners,  that  we  come  to  Christ.  We  have  lost  our  way 
and  desire  to  find  it.  We  have  rebelled  against  God  and 
desire  to  make  peace  with  him.  We  are  alienated  from 
him  and  desire  to  be  again  brought  near.  Our  sins  rise 
up  in  judgment  against  us,  and  we  desire  that  the  record 
of  them  should  be  blotted  out.  Through  sin  we  are  at 
enmity  with  God,  and  as  his  creatures,  dependent  on  his 
power,  as  his  children,  whose  only  hope  of  happiness 
comes  from  the  Father's  love,  our  chief  concern,  I  may  say 
our  only  concern,  is  to  find  the  means  of  reconciliation  with 
him ;  to  obtain  assurance  of  pardon  and  acceptance  with 
God,  of  whose  love  we  have  made  ourselves  so  unworthy. 

This  is  our  inquiry  to-night.     Not  an    abstract    subject 
of  metaphysical  research,  but  the  great  practical  question 
of  religion.     How  shall  the  burdened  conscience  throw  ofl 
its  load  ?     Where  shall  the  despairing  heart,  self-accused 
find  hope  ?     Where  shall  the  weary  and  heavy  laden  find 


THE    ATONEMENT.  103 

rest  ?  Is  *t  not  a  question  which  concerns  us  all  ?  May 
Go'J  in  his  mercy  guide  us  to  a  right  answer !  And  that 
we  may  be  so  guided,  lei  us  consiuer  it,  noi  as  a  disputed 
subject  in  theology,  but  as  a  practical  subject  in  vital 
religion. 

How  shall  the  cinner  be  reconciled  with  God  ?  How 
shall  he  be  justified^  or  restored  to  God's  favor  ?  How 
shall  he  obtain  forgiveness  and  remission  of  sins?  We 
look  for  an  answer,  —  First,  to  the  laws  of  God's  govern- 
ment; to  that  which  we  call  Nature,  interpreted  by  our 
unenlightened  reason.  An  answer  comes,  but  it  is  not  an 
answer  of  peace.  It  is  not  forgiveness,  but  "  Pay  me 
that  thou  owest."  "  If  thou  doest  well,  shalt  thou  not  be 
accepted  ?  and  if  thou  doest  not  well,  sin  lieth  at  the 
door.''''  It  is  the  voice  of  stern,  unpitying  exaction.  "  Ev- 
erywhere in  Nature  we  read  Law,  inexorable,  unrelenting 
Law.  She  governs  by  laws,  which  indeed  are  always 
adapted  to  the  good  of  the  whole,  to  the  advancement  and 
perfection  of  the  race,  but  beneath  them  the  individual 
CDntinually  is  crushed.  Nature  never  pardons.  Her  wheels 
thunder  along  their  iron  track,  nor  turn  out  to  spare  any 
helpless  mortal  who  has  fallen  beneath  them.  Ignorance 
of  the  law  is  no  excuse.  Helplessness  is  no  exemption. 
There  is  no  appeal  to  any  court  of  error,  but  prompt  ex- 
ecution follows  judgment.  The  innocent  child,  who  igno- 
rantly  touches  fire,  is  not  the  less  burned.  The  man  who, 
in  the  night,  ignorantly  walks  over  a  precipice,  is  not  the 
less  destroy  3d.  In  nature,  therefore,  we  find  no  word  of 
pardon  for  those  who  have  broken  the  law,  whatever  may 
be  their  excuse  or  sorrow."  *  If  the  laws  of  God's  moral 
government  are  equally  stern  and  unbending,  there  is  no 

*  Doctrine  of  Forgiveness,  by  James  F.  Clarke. 


104  THE    ATONEMEWT. 

hope  for  man ;  his  sins  will  surely  find  him  out,  and 
sooner  or  later  will  work  his  destruction. 

If  we  look  to  our  own  mpral  nature,  the  same  answer 
comes,  equally  stern,  equally  unpitying.  Perhaps  I  may 
say  even  more  so.  The  wound  upon  the  physical  frame 
will  be  healed  by  the  curative  power  of  nature  herself, 
and  although  a  scar  is  left,  the  injury  may  be  forgotten. 
But  the  wounds  of  conscience  are  not  healed  ;  sin  once 
committed  can  never  be  forgotten.  Or  if  for  a  time  it  be 
put  out  of  mind  by  the  hurried  pursuits  of  life,  it  will  still 
rise  up  again,  like  the  ghost  of  a  murdered  friend,  to  spoil 
our  best  enjoyment  aad  to  rebuke  us  in  our  proudest  im* 
aginings.  Conscience  speaks  no  word  of  pardon  ;  it  give^ 
no  assurance  that  God's  favor  will  be  restored  to  those  by 
whom  it  has  been  once  forfeited.  Its  rebuke  is  equally 
stern  for  a  sin  committed  years  ago  as  for  those  of  yester- 
day.  The  intervening  years  may  have  been  spent  in  the 
sorrow  of  repentance,  or  in  works  of  obedience,  but  con- 
science remains  unappeased.  Perhaps  the  more  nearly 
we  come  to  a  righteous  life,  the  more  deeply  we  feel  the 
stings  of  remorse,  for  the  iniquity  of  bygone  days. 

Such  is  the  natural  working  of  a  tender  conscience.  It 
cannot  find  comfort  for  itself;  it  cannot  blot  out  the  record 
of  its  own  sins.  It  looks  upward,  but  it  clothes  the  Almighty 
in  attributes  of  vengeance  ;  its  own  fears  read  anger  in  his 
face ;  its  own  sense  of  ill-deserving  anticipates  the  sen- 
tence of  condemnation.  It  drives  the  sinner  to  cruel  pen- 
ances, to  self-torture  and  scourging,  vainly  striving  tq 
expiate  the  sins  of  the  soul  by  the  sufferings  of  the  body ; 
and  yet,  after  years  of  such  penance,  the  poor  sutferer, 
at  each  renewed  remembrance  of  his  sin,  will  strike  the 
bleeding  scourge  more  deeply  into  the  flesh  and  cast  himself 
to  the  ground  in  renewed  and  hopeless   agony.      Histoi'y 


THE   ATONEMENT.  105 

w\\\  tell  of  a  thousand  such,  and  this  is  the  Voice  of  Pardon 
which  the  awakened  conscience  speaks. 

Or  sometimes  it  will  deceive  the  sinner  with  the  hope, 
that  by  offering  payment  to  the  Most  High  his  debts  may 
be  discharged ;  and  thus,  by  sacrifices  upon  the  altar,  or 
by  the  buildmg  of  costly  churches,  or  by  the  splendor  of 
external  worship,  or,  in  more  enlightened  times,  by  institu- 
tions of  charity  and  other  works  of  philanthropy,  men 
have  sought  to  make  their  peace  with  Him  against  whose 
majesty  they  have  rebelled.  But  still,  however  costly  the 
sacrifice,  the  conscience  cannot  be  thus  satisfied.  Still 
there  has  been  a  whispering,  that  it  is  not  possible  for  the 
blood  of  bulls  and  goats  to  take  away  sin ;  or  that  God 
should  be  appeased  by  the  imperfect  offerings  of  those 
who,  when  they  have  done  all,  are  but  unprofitable  servants. 

There  needed  something  more  than  this,  some  higher 
and  better  teaching.  It  is  a  necessity  which  every  one  of 
us,  who  acknowledges  himself  to  be  a  sinner,  must  feel, 
and  we  shall  feel  it  more  and  more  deeply,  in  proportion 
as  we  rise  higher  in  purity  and  goodness.  We  need  to  be 
assured  that  God  is  merciful.  Reason  itself  may  teach  us 
that  he  is  good  towards  those  who  do  not  violate  his  laws ; 
for  the  provisions  of  nature  are  always  bountiful  and  kind, 
both  for  man  and  beast,  so  long  as  they  are  not  perverted 
by  the  selfishness  or  folly  of  those  for  whose  good  they 
were  intended.  But  from  the  retributions  of  a  violated 
law,  reason  alone  finds  no  way  of  escape.  From  the 
anger  of  an  offended  God,  reason  alone  points  out  no  ref- 
uge. There  is  a  debt  which  cannot  be  paid,  and  reason 
alone  gives  no  assurance  that  God  will  remit  it.  This  is 
wha  we  need  to  learn,  that  God  is  merciful.  This  is  the 
balm  in  Gilead,  by  which  the  wounded  conscience  can  be 
made  whole  ;  this  is  the  voice  from  heaven  which  we  need 


106  THE    ATONEMENl. 

to  hear,  speaking  peace  to  the  broken  and  contrite  heart 
We  need  some  assurance,  that,  "  if  we  confess  our  sins»< 
God  is  faithful  and  just  to  forgive  our  sins  and  to  cleanee 
us  from  all  unrighteousness." 

The  religion  which  can  give  as  that  assurance  is  tlie 
religion  for  which  the  sinful  hear'  yeirns.  Let  us  but  learn 
that  there  is  forgiveness  with  God,  that  npon  certain  condi- 
tions,  with  which  we  are  able  to  ccrrplv.  he  will  not  impute 
to  men  their  past  offences,  but  w'lW  f^e^lji  just  if y  them  and 
graciously  accept  them,  in  the  exercise  of  his  iminite  mer- 
cy, and  it  is  all  we  need  to  know.  The  wall  of  s'^paration 
between  us  and  our  God  is  then  thrown  down,  The  way 
for  reconciliation,  and  for  the  redemption  which  follows  it, 
is  open.  He  who  brings  that  assurance,  who  instructs  us 
in  these  conditions,  is  indeed  our  Saviour.  But  if  he  not 
only  does  this,  but  gives  us  encouragement  and  help  in 
complying  with  the  conditions,  and  goes  before  in  the  way 
wherein  we  must  walk,  and  disarms  death  of  its  terror,  and 
reveals  God  to  us  as  a  Father  clothed  in  the  attributes  of 
tenderness  and  love,  and  opens  to  our  eyes  the  heavenly 
abode  where  God  and  his  angels  dwell,  and  to  which  he, 
the  messenger  of  love,  has  gone  before  to  prepare  a  place 
for  us,  that  where  he  is  we  may  be  also;  —  in  what  words 
can  we  express  our  gratitude,  except  to  say,  "  Thanks  bo 
to  God,  for  his  unspeakable  gift,"  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

Such  are  the  glad  tidings  of  great  joy,  "  Glory  to  God 
in  the  highest,  and  on  earth  peace,  good-will  toward  men." 
Whisperings  of  the  same  message  had  been  spoken  in  the 
world  before.  To  Abraham  and  to  his  children,  to  the 
righteous  men  and  prophets  of  olden  time,  some  intimations 
had  been  given  of  God's  abounding  love  towards  the  sinner : 
*' For  1  have  no  pleasure,  saith  the  Loid  God,  in  the  death 
of  the  sinner,   but  rather  that  he   should  turn  and  live." 


THE    ATONEMENT.  lOT 

By  such  words  many  hearts  had  been  comforted.  The 
penitent  sinner  had  been  made  to  hear  joy  and  glaJness, 
and  the  bones  which  had  been  broken  were  made  to  rejoice. 
Nay,  I  believe  that  in  all  religions,  even  in  those  most  ob- 
scured by  superstition,  there  have  always  been  some  rays 
of  divine  truth,  received  through  the  first  revelation  which 
God  made  of  himself  to  his  human  family,  by  which  a 
stronger  hope  of  God's  mercy  has  been  given  than  reason 
alone  could  suggest.  The  spirit  of  God  has  always  striven 
with  man ;  the  light  has  always  been  in  the  world  every- 
where, and  men  have  preferred  darkness  rather  than  light 
because  their  deeds  were  evil.  But  when,  through  the 
manifold  corruptions  of  sin  and  human  error,  the  whole 
head  had  become  sick  and  the  whole  heart  faint,  it  became 
necessary  that  a  clearer  revelation  of  God's  mercy  should 
be  made.  And  it  was  then,  when  the  full  time  had  come, 
that  "  God  sent  his  Son  into  the  world,  not  to  condemn  the 
world,  but  that  the  world  through  him  might  be  saved." 

The  Christian  religion  is  throughout  a  revelation  of  mer- 
cy ;  even  as  we  read,  "  Of  his  fulness  have  we  all  re- 
ceived, and  grace  for  grace."  I  do  not  mean  that  it  annuls 
God's  law ;  on  the  coi^trary,  Christ  came  to  fulfil,  or  to 
make  perfect  and  complete,  the  moral  law  under  which  we 
live  and  by  which  we  must  be  judged.  The  Christian  law 
of  morals  is  the  strictest  that  has  ever  been  given  to  man. 
It  is  the  strictest  that  we  can  conceive.  It  takes  hold,  not 
onl)'^  of  the  actions,  but  the  motives  from  which  action 
springs  ;  of  all  our  secret  desires  and  thoughts  and  purposes. 
It  holds  before  us  the  standard  of  absolute  perfection,  of 
which  it  gives  an  example  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  commands 
us  never  to  be  weary  of  wel' -doing,  until  we  have  attained 
to  the  fui.ness  of  his  stature.  But  for  the  past  offences  of 
the  penitent  sinner,  and  for  his  continued  short-comings  in 
the  Christian  race,  it  has    words   of  blessed    healing,   of 


108  THE    ATONEMENT. 

neavenly  comfort,  of  eternal  encouragement.  "  If  any 
man  sin,  we  have  an  advocate  with  the  Father,  even  fesua 
Christ  the  righteous." 

When  we  have  learned  with  humility  of  heart  to  confess 
our  sins,  to  acknowledge  ourselves  guilty  before  God,  and 
that  by  the  deeds  of  the  law  —  by  our  own  imperfect  right- 
eousness —  no  man  can  be  justified  in  his  sight,  then  do  we 
also  learn,  that  God  is  ready  to  justify  us,  to  restore  us 
igain  to  his  favor,  if  we  come  before  him  with  believing, 
trustful  hearts,  seeking  to  do  his  will  as  followers  of  Christ. 
That  he  will  justify  us ;  not  because  we  deserve  it,  for 
from  such  a  claim  every  mouth  is  stopped,  by  the  acknowl- 
edgment of  sin.  But  that  he  will  justify  us  freely,  by  his 
grace,  his  infinite  mercy,  through  the  redemption  that  is  in 
Christ  Jesus,  whom  he  hath  foreordained  to  be  a  mercy- 
seat  for  those  who  approach  through  faith  in  him,  to  declare 
that  the  sinner  shall  be  justified  — treated  as  though  he  were 
righteous,  received  to  the  arms  of  God's  love,  even  as  the 
returning  prodigal  was  received  by  his  father  —  by  the 
remission  of  sins  that  are  past,  through  the  forbearance  of 
God.  This  was  Christ's  mission;  to  declare  God's  justifi- 
cation of  the  repenting  sinner.  That  he  might  show  God 
to  be  at  the  same  time  just  and  the  justifier  of  him  who 
believeth  in  Jesus. 

We  can  therefore  rely  upon  the  mercy  of  God ;  we  can 
feel  sure  that,  if  we  go  to  him  as  children  to  a  father,  he 
will  receive  us ;  "  he  will  in  no  wise  cast  us  out."  But 
we  cannot  claim  the  merit  of  this  reception ;  it  is  not 
because  of  what  we  have  done,  and  all  the  boasting  of  the 
self-righteous  is  excluded.  It  is  to  God's  mercy  alone,  in 
Jesus  Christ,  that  we  owe  our  acceptance.  The  prime  and 
perhaps  only  condition  on  which  we  receive  forgiveness  of 
our  past  sins  is  an  act  which,  by  its  nature,  excludes  merit. 
It  is  an  act  of  self-renunciation  ;  the  j)rostration  before  God 


THE    ATONEMENT.  109 

of  the  self-convicted  sinner;  the  act  of  sincere  cc.ifession 
and  repentance  ;  in  a  word,  the  act  of  self-surrender  to 
God,  which  by  the  Scripture  .s  called  Faith.  Not  belief 
only,  that  belief  which  the  devils  also  may  have  even  while 
they  tremble ;  not  that  belief  which  is  often  an  exercise  of 
the  barren  intellect,  and  is  no  more  than  the  willing  or 
unwilling  acceptance  of  certain  opinions ;  but  Faith,  which 
is  the  deepest  experience  of  the  soul,  —  an  act  by  which 
oui  whole  relation  towards  God  is  changed ;  by  which  we 
are  brought  from  the  attitude  of  distrust  and  rebellion  to 
that  of  children  who,  although  with  tears  in  their  eyes, 
exclaim,  Abba,  my  Father  !  —  this  is  Christian  faith. 

This  is  the  condition  on  which  God  has  promised,  through 
Christ,  to  forgive  our  sins.  If  it  be  fulfilled,  he  has  prom- 
ised that  the  record  of  the  past  shall  be  blotted  out.  At 
the  foot  of  the  cross,  where  we  learn  to  believe,  the  burden 
falls  from  our  back,  and  we  start  forward  upon  a  new  race 
with  heaven  in  our  view.  A  long  and  arduous  race,  —  but 
we  begin  it  with  light  hearts,  full  of  hope,  sure  of  obtaining 
the  prize,  if  we  run  with  patience,  looking  unto  Jesus  who 
is  the  author  and  finisher  of  our  faith. 

The  law  of  God  is  therefore  not  made  void.  We  ac- 
knowledge its  full  force  by  that  act  of  faith,  which  is  the 
condition  of  pardon.  We  place  ourselves  under  the  con- 
demnation of  God's  law ;  we  wait  for  sentence  to  be 
passed  upon  us ;  and  instead  thereof,  hear  the  words  of 
the  Divine  Saviour,  "  Depart  in  peace,  thy  faith  hath  saved 
thee  "  ;  "  Go  and  sin  no  more." 

The  law  of  (jod  is  not  made  void;  it  is  established  as 
completely  as  if  its  utmost  penalty  had  been  exacted. 
The  continuance  of  God's  favor  is  also  made  to  depend 
upon  a  renewed  life,  a  life  of  filial  obedience,  without 
which  we  again  fall  into  condemnation. 
10 


no  THE    ATONEMENT. 

Nay,  something  more  than  this  is  true.  The  forgiveness 
of  sin  does  not  remove  all  evil  consequences.  It  removes 
the  worst,  which  is  our  estrangement  from  God,  but  there 
are  others  which  remain.  Although  we  may  be  restored 
to  his  favor  and  may  feel  in  our  hearts  the  earnest  of  heav- 
enly bliss,  it  requires  long  years  of  striving  to  rid  our  souls 
of  the  stains  which  sin  ha.,  left  there. 

The  intemperate  man  may  be  reformed,  he  may  feel 
that  his  reconciliation  with  God  is  made,  but  will  the  evil 
effects  of  past  transgression  quickly  disappear  ?  Will  not 
even  the  appetite  for  that  which  was  his  ruin  remain  and 
return  upon  him,  a  morbid  craving  for  that  which  he  strives 
to  hate  }  And  so  it  is  with  all  our  sins.  We  may  repen 
of  them,  we  may  forsake  them,  we  may  feel  that  through 
God's  mercy  in  Jesus  Christ  they  are  forgiven,  and  yet 
their  evil  consequences  may  remain,  —  increasing  the  diffi 
culty  of  our  onward  progress,  returning  upon  us  in  perverted 
tastes,  in  sinful  imaginings,  in  weakness  of  resolution,  so 
that  we  are  often  compelled  to  exclaim,  "  That  which  we 
do,  we  allow  not,  but  that  which  we  would  not,  we  do." 
Such  is  the  true  experience  of  the  sinner,  even  of  him  whc 
has  found  hope  in  Christ,  it  is  a  further  vindication  o! 
God's  law  ;  it  is  a  further  evidence  that  those  who  triflo 
with  their  souls  incur  a  dreadful  risk,  and  must,  to  a  certain 
extent,  reap  that  which  they  sow. 

God  may  forgive  them,  but  he  still  leaves  a  token  in  their 
souls,  by  which  they  may  see  how  narrow  has  been  their 
escape.  They  may  be  saved,  but  it  is  so  as  by  fire.  There- 
fore it  is  that  the  redeemed  in  Christ,  while  they  labor  to 
work  out  their  own  salvation,  must  do  it  with  fear  and  trem- 
bling. Thus,  again,  do  we  see  that  the  law  of  God  is  not 
made  void  by  the  terms  of  reconciliation  which  he  offers , 
yea,  it  i3  rather  established. 


THE    ATONEMENT.  Ill 

One  part,  therefore,  of  the  doctrine  of  reconciliation  we 
can  understand  perfectly.  I  mean,  so  far  as  it  requires  a 
change  in  us.  The  change  from  worldliness  to  devotion ; 
from  rebellion  to  childlike  self-surrender;  from  distrust  to 
faith ;  from  self-seeking  and  pride  to  self-denial  and  hu- 
mility. It  is  a  change  which  begins  in  a  renewed  heart 
and  is  completed  in  a  renewed  life.  This  is  our  reconciU 
iation  to  God.  We  also  understand  how  it  is  effected  in  us. 
By  the  knowledge  of  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus ;  by  the 
messages  of  love  which  he  brings  to  us  from  the  Father ; 
by  his  holy  example  ;  by  his  instructions  in  righteousness; 
by  his  sufferings  and  death  ;  by  his  promises  of  eternal 
life ;  by  his  resurrection  from  the  dead  ;  by  his  ascension 
into  heaven ;  by  his  intercession  for  us  with  the  Father  ; 
and  by  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  are  given 
through  him;  —  by  the  whole  Gospel  dispensation. 

It  is  not  only  that  Christ  has  taught  us  of  the  Father,  but 
much  more,  because  the  Father  is  manifest  in  the  Son. 
The  Divine  attributes,  however  explained  to  us,  we  could 
but  imperfectly  understand.  We  might  still  have  a  linger- 
ing fear,  that  the  justice  of  an  Infinite  Being  could  not  be 
satisfied,  without  *he  full  punishment  of  the  offender.  But 
when  we  read  the  history  of  Christ  himself,  the  image  of 
the  invisible  God,  and  see  how  perfectly  justice  and  mercy 
are  joined  together  in  him,  not  as  conflicting  attributes,  but 
as  only  different  exhibitions  of  the  same  parental  love,  stern 
or  gentle,  according  to  the  necessity  of  each  case,  we  can 
understand  how  God  is  just  and  the  justifier  of  those  who 
believe  in  Jesus ;  how  he  can  condemn  sin  ai^J  yet  pardon 
the  sinner;  "not  desiring  the  death  of  any,  but  that  all 
should  turn  to  him  and  live."  It  is  thus  .that  Christ  showed 
himself  to  us,  and  it  is  in  this  attribute  of  justice,  tempered 
by  mercy,  that  we  receive  him  as  the  manifestation  of  tlie 


112  THE    ATONEMENT. 

Father,  —  the  Word  made  flesh.  We  contend  that  there  is 
no  view  of  God's  justice,  which  can  be  correct,  that  does 
not  find  its  manifestation  and  development  in  Christ. 

Such  is  the  effect  on  us,  and  such  are  the  means  by 
which  it  is  produced.  This  is  therefore  the  practical  part 
of  our  subject.  So  far  as  vite  are  concerned  in  the  work  of 
reconciliation  with  God,  this  is  all  that  we  need  to  know. 
We  know  that  God  is  willing  to  receive  us ;  we  know  the 
conditions  on  which  we  shall  be  received ;  every  motive 
for  coming  to  him,  and  every  encouragement,  is  given;  we 
see  from  what  source  help  will  come  to  our  infirmities ;  we 
know  enough  of  God's  counsels  to  be  sure  that  our  seeking 
will  not  be  in  vain. 

Upon  all  this  there  is  scarcely  any  controversy  among 
Christians.  Here,  as  in  almost  all  other  doctrines,  the 
controversy  is  not  concerning  that  which  is  practical,  for 
the  practical  is  almost  always  plain.  It  concerns  questions 
to  which  we  can  give  no  positive  answer.  It  is  upon  sub- 
jects which  are  for  the  great  part  beyond  our  reach.  There 
are  some  points  of  difficulty  of  this  sort  in  the  doctrine  of 
atonement ;  questions  of  theology,  rather  than  of  religion. 
Such  for  example  as  these  :  In  the  work  of  reconciliation, 
is  not  a  change  in  God  also  needed,  as  well  as  in  us  ?  How 
did  the  death  of  Christ  make  it  safe  for  God  to  forgive  sin 
in  a  sense  in  which  it  was  not  before  safe  ?  What  effect 
upon  the  counsels  of  God  does  the  mediation  of  Christ 
produce  ?  In  what  sense  did  Christ  die  for  us  and  suffer  in 
our  stead  ?  The  questions  are  of  great  interest,  but  while 
I  state  them  you  see  that  they  are  chiefiy  above  our  com- 
prehension. We  may  speculate  ccncerning  them,  but  can- 
not arrive  at  certain  conclusions.  We  shall  attempt  tc 
answer  them,  however,  so  far  as  the  Scripture  guides  us 
next  Sunday  evenmg. 


THE      ATONEMENT. 


GOD  WAS  IN  CHRIST,  RECONCILING  THE  WORLD  ?NTO  HIMSELF, 
NOT   IMPUTING   THBIB   TRESPASSES  UNTO   THEM. — 2  Cor.  V.  19. 

In  our  inquiries  last  Sunday,  we  examined  the  more 
practical  part  of  the  doctrine  of  atonement  or  reconcilia- 
tion. We  saw  that,  to  effect  reconciliation  with  God,  a  radi- 
cal change  is  needed  in  us.  The  question  now  arises,  Is  a 
corresponding  change  needed  in  God  himself.'*  Let  me 
igain  say,  that  until  we  can  penetrate  more  deeply  into  the 
Divine  nature  than  we  now  can,  it  is  a  question  to  which 
vve  can  give  no  clear  answer. 

Of  all  the  attributes  of  God  there  is  none  more  complete- 
ly beyond  our  comprehension  than  his  unchangeableness  or 
immutability.  We  are  taught,  on  the  one  hand,  that  in 
him  there  is  no  change,  neither  shadow  of  turning ;  but  on 
the  other,  that  he  is  a  Father  who  pities  his  children,  who 
does  not  afflict  willingly,  who  answers  our  prayers,  who 
forgives  our  sins.  All  of  which  implies  that  his  counte- 
nance towards  us  changes,  that  his  dealings  with  us  change, 
that  he  regards  us  with  different  feelings  at  different  times, 
according  to  the  relation  in  which  we  stand  towards  him. 
I  think  that  this  is  the  general  representation  of  God  in  ths 
10* 


114  THE    ATONEMENT. 

Scriptures.     He  is  shown  to  us,  not  as  an  abstract  order  oi 
the  universe,  stern  and  unvarying,  uninfluenced  by  prayer, 
unchanged  by  repentance,  but  as  a  Heavenly  Father,  with 
all  the  attributes  of  tenderness  and  compassion  which  be 
long  to  that  name. 

If  that  is  the  true  representation,  it  seems  impossible  that 
his  feelings  should  be  the  same  towards  the  hardened  rebel, 
and  the  repentant  sinner,  and  the  glorified  saint.  Our  own 
hearts  tell  us  that  it  cannot  be.  Yet  if  God  is  immutable, 
how  can  it  be  otherwise  ?  Some  will  answer,  that  he  is  like 
the  sun  in  the  heavens,  always  shining  with  clear  and  benig- 
nant rays ;  and  that  the  clouds  which  veil  him  from  our 
eyes,  namely  our  sins,  work  no  change  in  him,  although 
they  change  his  relation  toward  us.  Perhaps  it  is  a  right 
answer,  but  I  confess  it  seems  to  me  to  make  our  wh3le 
relations  with  God  too  mechanical.  The  heart  yearns  for 
personal  affection.  We  long  for  the  smile  of  approbation, 
not  a  seeming  smile,  but  the  real  smile  of  tenderness  and 
parental  love.  Whether  it  is  weakness  or  not,  1  do  not 
know,  but  I  am  sure  that  our  hearts  are  more  moved  by 
the  representation  of  God  in  the  parable  of  the  Prodigal 
Son,  where  the  Father  cannot  wait  to  be  sought  for,  but 
goes  out  to  meet  his  returning  child  and  falls  upon  his  neck 
and  kisses  him,  than  by  all  the  abstract  arguments  of  God's 
unchanging  goodness  that  have  ever  been  written.  It  may 
be  unphilosophical,  but  perhaps,  when  we  know  more,  we 
shall  find  that  the  philosophy  which  requires  us  to  be  untrue 
to  our  nature  is  "  falsely  so  called." 

I  cannoi  but  look  with  suspicion  upon  any  system  of 
religion  which  philosophizes  away  our  natural  aflTections. 
When  we  lie  under  the  burden  of  sin,  our  hearT«  tell  us 
■^hat  we  are  at  enmity  with  God,  and  that  he  is  thereby 
estranged  from  us.     Not  that  he  regards  us  with  any  thing 


THE    ATONEMENT.  115 

like  human  anger,  fcr  he  loves  us  even  then ;  but  there  is 
the  estrangement  which  holiness  must  feel  towards  sin. 
There  is  a  desire  for  our  return  and  the  feeling  of  appro- 
bation, the  renewal  of  that  kind  of  love  which  had  been 
withdrawn,  when  we  come  to  him  and  say,  "  Father,  we 
have  sinned  against  Heaven  and  before  thee."  In  our  the- 
ory, we  may  say  that  there  is  no  change ;  but  it  is  a  theory 
which  our  feelings  do  not  recognize.  It  is  an  intuition  of 
our  nature  that  God  loves  us  in  a  different  sense,  when  we 
return  to  him,  from  that  in  which  he  loved  us  before. 

You  will  see,  however,  from  my  whole  manner  of  speak- 
ing, that  I  do  not  believe  in  such  a  change  in  God  as  is 
sometimes  taught.  Many  persons  teach  the  doctrine  of 
atonement  as  though  .the  chief  difficulty  were  on  the  side 
of  God,  and  not  on  that  of  the  sinner.  They  speak  of 
God's  being  reconciled  to  man,  much  more  than  of  man's 
being  reconciled  to  God.  They  represent  God  as  having 
been  full  of  anger,  of  vindictive  wrath,  ready  to  hurl  pun- 
ishment upon  sinners,  unwilling  and  unable  to  forgive 
ihem,  urtil  his  anger  was  appeased  by  the  sufferings  and 
death  of  Christ,  who  endured  the  punishment  of  the  guilty. 

We  rf'pci  this  view,  first,  because  the  Scripture  uniform- 
ly repres^nte  that  the  cause  of  Christ's  coming  into  the 
woi'ld  was'  not  the  wrath  of  God,  but  his  love.  "  God 
so  io\ed  &f*  world,  that  he  gave  his  only-begotten  Son,  that 
whosoever  believeth  in  him  should  have  everlasting  life." 
"  Herein  i?  love,  not  that  we  loved  God,  but  that  God  loved 
us,  and  sent  his  Son  to  be  the  propitiation  for  our  sins." 
And  still  more  strongly,  "  In  this  was  manifested  the  love  erf 
God  towards  us,  because  that  God  sent  his  only-begotten 
Son  into  the  world,  that  we  might  live  through  him."  I 
repeat,  that  this  is  not  the  occasional,  but  the  uniform,  state- 
ment of  the  Scripture.     There  is  no  passage  which  says  or 


116  THE    ATONEMENT. 

implies  that  God's  anger  with  the  sinner  was  the  cause  o( 
Christ  comii'g,  or  that  Christ  came  to  make  him  merciful. 
His  coming  was  a  proof  of  mercy  ;  it  was  the  effect  of 
God's  love.  God's  anger  is  not  of  a  kind  that  needs  to  be 
appeased. 

Another  reason  why  we  reject  such  a  theory  of  God's 
anger  is  this :  The  Scriptures  represent  that  Christ  is  the 
manifestation  of  God.  In  his  character,  therefore,  we  learn 
the  attributes  of  God.  This  is  our  best  instruction  concern- 
ing the  meaning  of  God's  justice  and  mercy,  of  his  anger 
and  love.  But  according  to  the  view  of  the  Divine  wrath 
just  now  considered,  God  and  Christ  are  placed  in  the  strong- 
est contrast ;  one  all  anger,  the  other  all  love ;  one  all  jus- 
tice, the  other  all  mercy ;  one  seeking  to  punish,  the  other 
seeking  to  save.  Such  a  view  cannot  be  correct.  God  is 
love,  and  Christ  is  the  image  of  his  love.  In  no  respect  is 
the  Son  more  perfectly  the  manifestation  of  the  Father, 
than  in  this. 

Thirdly :  We  are  confirmed  in  this  view,  because  there 
is  not  a  single  passage  in  the  Bible  in  which  God  is  said  to 
be  reconciled  to  man,  but  always  that  man  is  to  be  recon- 
ciled to  God.  "  For  if,  when  we  were  enemies,  we  were 
reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of  his  Son,  much  more, 
being  reconciled,  we  shall  be  saved  by  his  life."  Rom.  v.  10. 
"  All  things  are  of  God,  who  hath  reconciled  us  to  himself 
by  Jesus  Christ,  and  hath  given  to  us  the  ministry  of  recon- 
ciliation;  namely,  that  God  was  in  Christ  reconciling  the 
world  unto  himself,  not  imputing  their  trespasses  unto  them, 
and  hath  committed  unto  us  the  word  of  reconciliation. 
Now  then  we  are  ambassadors  for  Christ,  as  though  God 
did  beseech  you  by  us.  Be  ye  reconciled  to  God."  2  Cor. 
V.  18-20.  Here  is  a  full  statement  of  the  subject  before 
»ig.     It  is  God  pleading  with  us  through  Christ,  as  a  Fathei 


THE    ATONEMENT.  117 

pleuis  with  his  erring  children.  He  is  ready  to  be  recon- 
ciled to  them,  whenever  they  will  come  to  him.  He  en- 
courages them  to  come,  he  waits  for  them,  he  goes  out  to 
meet  them.  In  the  work  of  reconciliation  which  must  be 
effected  before  they  can  be  received,  the  difficulty  is  noi 
on  his  part,  but  on  theirs  alone. 

If,  therefore,  we  admit  that  a  change  takes  place  m  the 
feelings  of  God  towards  the  returning  sinner,  it  is  not  a 
change  from  vindictive  wrath  to  overflowing  love,  from  a 
God  who  is  all  justice  to  a  God  of  all  mercy,  but  it  is  a 
change  from  one  kind  of  love  to  another.  As  the  earthly 
parent  loves  his  children,  both  when  they  are  rebellious 
and  when  they  are  repentant,  so  does  God  love  us  all 
and  always.  If  it  is  a  different  kind  of  love,  it  arises  from 
the  necessity  of  the  case,  in  the  dealings  of  a  being  infi- 
nitely holy  towards  those  who  are  frail  and  sinful. 

We  think  that  no  other  view  of  God  is  either  Scriptural 
or  reasonable.  It  presents  him  to  us,  not  only  as  a  God,  but 
as  a  Father,  wise  in  his  compassion ;  in  whom  the  attri- 
butes of  justice  and  mercy  are  only  the  different  exercise  of 
the  same  love. 

The  next  question  which  arises  is  this  :  What  effect  upon 
the  counsels  of  God  does  the  mediation  of  Christ  produce  } 
By  the  mediation  of  Christ  we  mean,  not  only  his  sufferings 
and  death,  but  the  whole  Gospel  dispensation.  His  coming 
down  from  heaven,  his  instructions,  his  life  and  holy  exam- 
ple, his  precepts,  his  sufferings  and  death,  his  resurrection, 
his  ascension  into  heaven  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father, 
to  make  intercession  for  us.  This  is  the  whole  Gospel  dis- 
pensation. We  understand  it  all  to  be  included  in  Christ's 
work  as  the  mediator  between  God  and  man. 

Wha*  effect  did  it  produce  upon  the  counsels  of  God 
towards  *le  sinner.?     Here  again  our  limited  faculties  pre- 


118  THE    ATONE  lENT. 

sent  a  difficulty.  It  is  a  question  which  we  cannot  answei 
perfectly,  until  by  our  searching  we  can  find  out  God,  and 
enter  into  the  secret  places  of  his  wisdom.  We  believe 
the  Gospel  dispensation  was  needful.  It  does  not  express 
the  whole  truth  to  say  that  the  coming  of  Christ  was  desira- 
ble, as  a  means  of  salvation,  for  it  was  indispensable. 
From  the  beginning,  it  was  a  part  of  God's  counsel  towards 
man.  It  is  an  essential  link  in  the  chain,  by  which  God 
draws  the  sinner  to  himself.  In  the  plan  of  salvation  we 
cannot  dispense  with  Christ :  "  No  man,"  he  says,  "  can 
come  to  the  Father  but  by  me."  "  I  am  the  vine,  ye  are 
the  branches.  As  the  branch  cannot  bear  fruit  of  itself, 
except  it  abide  in  the  vine,  no  more  can  ye,  except  ye 
abide  in  me."  Words  cannot  express  more  strongly  than 
these,  the  personal  necessity  of  Christ  to  us.  I  could  give 
you  a  hundred  instances  of  the  same  sort,  teaching  in  the 
strongest  terms  our  dependence  upon  the  Gospel  dispensa- 
tion, for  the  hope,  and  in  the  work,  of  salvation. 

But  if  you  ask  me  why  God  has  so  appointed,  or  if  he 
could  not  have  devised  some  other  means  by  which  the 
same  gracious  work  would  have  been  accomplished,  you 
ask  me  unwisely,  and  it  would  be  unwise  in  me  to  attempt 
an  answer.  It  is  enough  for  us  that  there  is  one  way; 
that  if  we  come  to  God  in  penitence  and  faith,  as  Christ 
has  taught  us  to  come,  we  shall  find  forgiveness  and  accept- 
ance with  him  ;  that  under  the  Gospel  dispensation  there  is 
no  stumbling-block  in  our  path  to  heaven,  except  deliberate 
and  continued  sin.  If  we  are  delivered  from  the  body  of 
this  death,  we  should  thank  God,  through  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  without  being  too  curious  to  know  whether  God 
could  not  have  found  some  other  means,  equally  effectual, 
for  our  deliverance. 

There  is  no  difiiculty  in  the  belief  that  man's  salvation 


THE   ATONEMENT.  119 

depends  upon  the  mediation  of  Christ.  Consider  it  either 
as  a  work  done  for  us,  or  as  a  prayer  offered  for  our  sake. 
In  either  case,  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  the  absolute  neces- 
sity of  Christ's  coming,  and  of  his  sufferings  and  death,  is 
according  to  the  analogy  of  God's  general  dealing  with  us 
and  to  our  belief  as  Christians  in  the  efficacy  of  prayer. 
Nearly  all  the  blessings  which  come  to  the  wo^ld,  come 
through  the  faithful  exertions  of  the  good.  It  is  to  the 
holy  throng  of  apostles  and  martyrs,  God's  saints  on  earth, 
that  all  progress  in  wisdom  and  goodness,  and  all  triumphs 
ovei  evil,  are  due.  If  they  had  not  lived,  or  if  they  had 
been  unfaithful,  a  thousand  blessings  for  which  we  are  now 
thanKful  would  never  have  reached  us.  It  is  in  accordance 
with  the  same  law,  although  in  a  higher  exemplification  of 
\t,  that  the  work  of  Christ  was  performed.  We  may  not 
understand  its  full  efficacy,  but  we  can  understand  its  neces- 
sity, and  that  from  its  faithful  performance  our  salvation 
proceeds. 

And  so,  if  we  consider  Christ's  mediation  as  a  prayer, 
or  continued  intercession  with  God  for  our  sake,  the  Scrip- 
tural doctrine  of  its  efficacy  presents  no  greater  difficulty 
than  the  doctrine  of  prayer  in  general.  We  believe  that 
our  prayers  are  answered  ;  that  God  is  more  ready  to  give 
his  Holy  Spirit  to  those  that  ask  him,  than  an  earthly  parent 
is  to  bestow  good  gifts  upon  his  children.  But  who  shall 
explain  this  .'*  Who  shall  tell  us  how  prayer  is  answered  .'' 
How  can  human  asking  change  the  mind  of  God  towards 
us  ?  We  do  not  know,  yet  our  affections,  our  inward  expe- 
rience, not  less  than  the  Scriptures,  assure  us  that  prayer 
is  answered  ;  that  by  prayer,  and  in  answer  to  prayer,  we 
obtain  blessings  which  otherwise  would  never  come  to  us. 
Nor  can  I  perceive  any  greater  unreason.?  bleness  in  the 
belief  that   our  prayers,  one   for  another,  are  answered 


120  THE    ATONEMENT. 

It  is  an  instinct  to  pray  for  those  we  love.  We  canno^ 
explain  how  the  prayer  can  bring  the  blessing,  but  yet  we 
cannot  help  praying.  Such  spiritual  instincts  should  not  be 
slighted  because  they  are  beyond  the  reach  of  intellect. 
To  me  they  carry  their  own  evidence.  I  believe  in  God, 
not  so  much  because  it  can  be  proved  by  argument,  as 
because  it  is  a  necessity  of  my  nature.  For  the  same  rea- 
son I  believe  in  prayer,  and  the  Scripture  strongly  confirms 
the  belief.  It  teaches  that  the  effectual,  fervent  prayer  of  a 
righteous  man  availeth  much.  If  we  knew  more  of  God, 
and  of  the  spiritual  world,  and  of  the  laws  by  which  all 
spiritual  beings  are  bound  together  in  one  mysterious  chain, 
from  the  lowest  to  the  highest,  we  might  be  able  to  under- 
stand how  the  prayers  of  the  good  may  be  answered  in 
behalf  of  the  wicked,  and  that  the  nearer  to  God  we  come 
m  purity  and  love,  the  more  effectual  our  prayers  will  be. 
We  then  might  understand  how  the  intercession  of  one 
like  Jesus,  the  beloved  Son  of  God,  can  be  an  indispensa- 
ble influence  and  a  real  agency  in  the  redemption  of  the 
world.  Such,  at  least,  is  the  Scriptural  doctrine,  and  as 
such  we  are  content  to  receive  it.  Christ  then  becomes  to 
us  the  living  head  of  the  Church.  He  is  not  only  our  bene- 
factor through  his  life  and  sufferings  on  earth,  but  he  also 
liveth  to  make  intercession  for  us  with  the  Father.  In  our 
stragglings  against  sin  and  our  efforts  to  rise,  it  is  an  un- 
speakable comfort  to  know,  that  we  have  the  sympathy  and 
prayers  and  spiritual  aid  of  one  so  pure  and  good,  who  was 
tempted  in  all  points  as  we  are,  yet  without  sin,  who  was 
made  perfect  through  suffering,  and  is  now  exalted  at  the 
right  hand  of  God. 

We  now  proceed  to  a  point  which  has  involved  much 
discussion  and  given  rise  to  a  multitude  of  theories.  How 
did  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ  make  it  safe  for  God 


THE    ATONEMENT.  ISl 

to  forgive  sin,  in  a  sense  in  which  it  was  not  before  safe  ? 
There  are  some  who  say,  that  it  was  by  Christ's  suffering 
the  full  penalty  of  sin,  and  thereby  making  full  satisfaction 
to  the  law,  that  he  enabled  the  sinner  to  go  free.  A  theory 
which  we  cannot  receive,  chiefly  for  two  reasons. 

First,  it  leaves  no  room  for  God's  mercy.  If  a  debt  is 
fully  paid,  we  owe  thanks  to  him  who  paid  it,  but  not  to 
him  who  exacts  the  payment.  Such  is  not  the  doctrine  of 
the  Bible,  which  teaches  us  that  God  freely  forgives ;  that 
our  trespasses  are  not  imputed  to  us,  "  through  his  forbear- 
ance," not  through  his  exaction  of  the  penalty  from  another. 
Christ  teaches  us  to  pray,  "  Forgive  us  our  trespasses,  as  we 
forgive  those  who  trespass  against  us,"  which  is  not  con- 
sistent with  the  idea  of  the  debts  being  paid,  either  by  the 
offender  himself,  or  by  any  one  else  for  him.  If  a  debt  is 
paid,  there  can  be  a  release,  but,  properly  speaking,  there  is 
no  room  for  remission. 

Secondly,  the  chief  penalty  of  sin,  the  only  real  penalty, 
is  remorse  of  conscience  and  estrangement  from  God, 
and  by  the  nature  of  the  soul  no  one  can  endure  this  pen- 
alty for  another.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  also,  Christ  did 
not  endure  it.  No  remorse  of  conscience  ever  visited  him. 
However  mysterious  and  inexplicable  his  sufferings  may 
have  been,  this  never  made  any  part  of  them.  Never  for 
a  moment  did  he  feel  estrangement  from  God  ;  never  for  a 
moment  was  the  love  of  God  withdrawn  from  him.  In  the 
agony  of  human  suffering,  he  exclaimed,  "  My  God,  my 
God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ? "  But  perhaps  even 
these  words  were  spoken,  as  calling  to  his  mind  the  whole 
of  the  triumphant  psalm  of  David  from  which  they  are 
taken;  and  even  in  that  dreadful  hour  we  perceive  his 
nearness  to  God,  in  the  comforting  words  spoken  to  the 
repentant  criminal,  and  in  his  prayer  for  his  enemies,  and 
11 


182  THE    ATONEMENT. 

in  his  dying  words,  "  Into  thy  hands  I  commend  my  spirit.' 
No ;  Christ  truly  suffered,  the  just  for  the  unjust,  but  he  did 
not  suffer  as  a  sinner,  and  therefore  he  did  not  suffer  the 
Dunishment  of  sin.  By  the  blindness  of  human  judgment, 
he  was  numbered  among  the  transgressors,  and  suffered  an 
ignominious  and  cruel  death,  but  he  was  always  the  beloved 
Son,  in  whom  God  was  well  pleased.  He  was  never  nearer 
to  God,  he  was  never  further  removed  from  the  punishment 
of  sin,  than  when  his  sufferings  for  our  sake  were  the  most 
terrible. 

We  cannot  believe,  therefore,  in  the  theory  of  Christ's 
sufferings  just  stated.  But  we  can  perceive  that  in  another 
way  the  Gospel  dispensation,  in  which  we  include  the  suf- 
ferings and  death  of  Christ,  has  made  it  safe  that  sin  should 
be  forgiven,  under  God's  moral  government,  in  a  sense  in 
which  it  might  not  otherwise  have  been  safe.  The  two 
essential  requisites  to  make  pardon  safe  are  these  :  first,  to 
secure  in  the  offender  such  a  disposition  as  will  lead  him  to 
a  true  and  permanent  reformation  ;  and  secondly,  to  main- 
tam  the  sanctity  of  the  law  so  that  it  shall  not  be  brought 
jnto  contempt,  but  that,  while  the  sinner  is  forgiven,  his 
abhorrence  of  sin  may  be  increased,  and  the  heinousness 
of  s5n,  in  God's  sight,  be  made  more  plainly  to  appear. 
When  these  two  requisites  are  attained,  forgiveness  of  sin 
beconies  safe.  It  is  safe  to  the  sinner  himself,  because  his 
reformat'op  is  secure  ;  it  is  safe  to  the  moral  government 
of  God,  because  his  law  is  not  brought  into  contempt,  but 
is  honored  ev*^.n  more  highly.  This  is  prccieely  the  result 
which  the  Gcsp^^l  dispensation  accomplishes.  It  arouses  the 
sinner  to  those  en^otions,  by  which  alone  hi&  reconciliation 
with  God  can  be  effected,  and  his  reformation  secured,— 
the  emotions  of  repeptrnce,  of  self-renunciation,  of  love 
—which  are  in  themselves  a  complete  renewa'  of  the  in- 


THE    ATONEMENT.  123 

ward  life,  and  thus  brings  him  to  such  a  relation  towards 
God,  that  the  word  of  pardon  can  be  safely  spoken. 

Such  has  been  the  experience  of  hundreds  of  thousands. 
The  ministry  of  Christ,  and  especially  his  sufferings  and 
death,  have  been  the  influence  by  which  more  souls  have 
been  aroused  from  the  sleep  of  sin,  than  by  all  others 
beside.  But  at  the  same  time  the  hatred  of  sin  has  been 
increased.  The  manner  in  which  pardon  is  brought  to  the 
sinner  is  the  most  dreadful  condemnation  of  sin.  It  is 
offered  to  us  at  the  expense  of  so  much  suffering,  that  when 
we  read  the  account  of  it,  we  lament  our  sins,  by  which  it 
was  made  necessary,  more  bitterly  than  at  any  other  time. 
If  it  had  been  proclaimed  from  heaven,  that  God  is  ready 
to  forgive  the  repenting  sinner,  the  message  would  have 
been  the  same  that  we  have  now  received,  but  how  different 
would  have  been  the  effect !  We  might  then  indeed  have 
supposed  that  sin  is  a  light  evil,  and  its  record  easily  blotted 
out.  But  when  we  read  the  narrative  of  Christ's  sufferings, 
we  perceive  how  heinous  sin  must  be  in  the  sight  of  God  ; 
our  consciences  are  awakened  to  discern  how  terrible  its 
consequences  must  be,  here  and  hereafter.  If  it  were  a 
small  evil,  if  escape  from  it  were  easy,  if  its  consequences 
were  temporary  and  trivial,  would  the  Heavenly  Father 
have  appointed  his  holy  child  Jesus  to  a  life  of  such  suf- 
fering, and  to  a  death  of  such  agony,  for  its  removal .?  We 
think  not;  nay,  we  are  sure  that  it  could  not  be.  The 
whole  Gospel  dispensation,  as  God  has  directed  it,  impresses 
us  deeply  with  the  avvfulness  of  sin  ;  it  brings  before  us  the 
vision  of  its  terrible  consequences  more  distinctly,  by  its 
accents  of  love  mingled  with  the  records  of  suffering,  than 
could  have  been  done  by  the  most  fearful  threats  of  pun- 
ishment, or  the  most  vindictive  execution  of  the  law. 

Something   of  the   same   benignant   purpose  we   see  in 


124  THE    ATONEMENT. 

God's  general  providence.  It  is  through  the  sufTering  and 
sacrifices  of  the  good,  through  their  pains,  self-denials  and 
martyrdoms,  that  the  sins  of  the  wicked  receive  their 
sternest  rebuke,  and  the  sinner  himself  is  reformed.  Nor 
are  there  any  circumstances,  under  which  we  hate  our  sins 
so  much,  as  when  suffering  is  endured  by  those  whom  we 
love,  for  the  sake  of  their  removal.  How  much  more  do 
we  feel  this,  when  brought  home  to  us  by  the  sufferings  of 
one  at  the  same  time  so  puretind  so  exalted  as  Jesus  Christ! 
In  proportion  as  we  believe  in  them,  the  effect  is  deepened ; 
it  grows  with  our  spiritual  growth,  it  strengthens  with  our 
spiritual  strength.  It  is  not  a  mysterious  influence,  but 
natural  and  unavoidable ;  the  working  of  the  human  heart, 
when  softened  by  the  dews  of  God's  grace.  It  leads  to  the 
perfect  vindication  of  the  sacredness  of  God's  law,  at  the 
same  time  that  pardon  is  offered  to  the  sinner  and  his 
return  to  righteousness  secured. 

There  is  one  other  question  under  the  doctrine  of  Atone- 
ment, which  we  must  consider,  although  in  but  veiy  few 
words.  In  what  sense  did  Christ  die  for  us  ?  The  lan- 
guage of  Scripture  with  reference  to  it  is  various  and  strong, 
—  sometimes  figurative,  sometimes  literal,  sometimes  ob- 
scure. He  is  our  ransom,  our  sacrifice,  our  sin-offering ; 
he  is  made  sin  for  us,  he  bore  our  punishment,  the  chastise- 
nnent  of  our  peace  is  laid  upon  him,  by  his  stripes  we  are 
fiCaled ;  he  has  borne  our  griefs,  he  was  bruised  for  our 
iniquities,  and  the  Lord  hath  laid  upon  him  the  iniquity  of 
us  all.  All  of  this  is  Scriptural  language.  What  does  it 
mean  .?  A  part  of  it  is  manifestly  figurative,  as  when  it  is 
eaid  "  he  hath  made  him  to  be  sin  for  us,"  and  "  upon  him 
is  laid  the  iniquity  of  us  all."  Some  persons  have  under- 
stood even  this  literally,  and  thus  Martin  Luther  taught  that 
Christ  was  the  greatest  sinner,  mu:'derer,  robber,  and  the 


THE    ATONEMENT.  125 

like,  that  the  world  ever  saw,  because  all  the  sins  of  all  the 
world  were  accumulated  in  him,  to  receive  their  condem- 
nation and  their  punishment.  I  do  not  know  what  men 
mean,  when  they  use  such  language,  and  it  is  charitable  to 
suppose  that  they  do  not  know  themselves.  There  is  no 
danger  of  any  one  using  it  at  the  present. day,  and  no  need 
of  proving  its  absurdity. 

In  the  same  manner  the  word  ransom  has  been  interpret- 
ed literally,  and  some  of  the  Christian  Fathers  taught  that 
the  sufferings  of  Christ  were  the  ransom,  or  purchase-mon- 
ey, paid  by  God  and  received  by  the  enemy  of  souls,  the 
Devil,  as  the  price  of  the  sinner's  release.  We  shall  not 
follow  such  interpretations  further;  they  belong  to  days 
gone  by,  and  are  a  monument  of  human  weakness. 

The  whole  language  which  we  have  quoted  we  think 
means  no  more  nor  less  than  this  :  that  Christ  suffered  for 
us,  the  just  for  the  unjust,  to  bring  us  to  God.  Whatever 
is  expressed. more  than  these  words  imply  is  figurative,  and 
not  literal.  The  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ  were  neces- 
sary as  a  means  of  our  redemption  from  sin  ;  they  were 
therefore  endured  in  consequence  or  on  account  of  our 
sins  ;  they  were  our  ransom,  the  price  paid  for  us,  the  cost 
of  our  deliverance.  "  The  chastisement  of  our  peace  was 
laid  upon  him,"  because  this  was  the  means  through  wniL,h 
our  peace  was  obtained.  "  By  his  stripes  we  are  healed," 
because  the  healing  of  our  souls,  in  the  forgiveness  of  our 
sins,  is  the  result  of  that  dispensation  of  which  his  suffer- 
ings were  a  needful  part.  "  We  are  washed  in  his  blood," 
because  the  shedding  of  his  blood  leads  to  our  cleansing. 
He  suffered  and  died  in  our  stead,  (although  this  is  not  a 
Scriptural  expression,)  because  his  sufferings  and  death  save 
us  from  condemnation.  As  to  all  this  language,  there  has 
been  much  disputing  about  words.  I  find  in  orthodox 
11* 


126  THE    ATONEMENT. 

creeds  and  books  a  great  deal  to  which  I  cannot  assent 
But  whenever  I  converse  with  individuals  who  receive  such 
creeds,  and  learn  what  they  mean  by  the  words  used,  the 
differences  gradually  fade  away.  I  believe  that  the  majority 
of  them  hold  in  fact  nearly  the  same  doctrine  which  I  have 
now  explained.  Even  when  they  speak  of  a  vicarious 
atonement,  they  very  often  mean  no  more  than  we  can 
accept.  There  is  a  plain  and  real  sense  in  which  I  can  use 
that  word,  for  it  is  true  that  Christ  suffered  for  us,  and  by 
this  means,  through  the  grace  of  God,  we  escape  the  suf- 
fering which  our  sins  would  otherwise  have  brought  upon 
us.  If  he  had  not  come  upon  earth  and  fulfilled  his  minis- 
try, we  must  have  died  in  our  sins,  for  we  are  not  able  to 
guide  ourselves  nor  save  ourselves,  and  it  is  through  him 
alone  that  we  come  near  to  God.  There  may  be  others 
who  believe  more  than  these  words  convey,  and  who  teach 
that  the  wrath  of  God  was  literally  laid  on  Jesus  Christ ; 
but  I  seldom  meet  them,  and  think  that  their  number  is 
daily  becoming  less.  For  ourselves,  we  are  satisfied  to 
know  that  "  God  commendeth  his  love  towards  us,  in  that, 
while  we  were  yet  sinners,  Christ  died  for  us."  The  way 
for  our  return  to  God  is  open,  and  he  is  waiting  to  be 
gracious. 


KEGENEEAIION 


JSSUS  ANSWERED  AND  SAID  UNTO  HIM,  VERILY,  VERILT,  I  SAT 
UNTO  THEE,  EXCEPT  A  MAN  BE  BORN  AGAIN,  HE  CANNOT  SEE  THB 
KINGDOM  OP  GOD.  THAT  WHICH  IS  BORN  OF  THE  FLESH  IS  FLESH, 
AND  THAT  WHICH  IS  BORN  OF  THE  SPIRIT  IS  SPIRIT. —  John  iu.  3,  6. 

Our  subject  this  evening  is  the  Christian  doctrine  of  Re- 
generation, or  the  new  birth  ;  the  nature  of  the  change 
implied  in  those  words,  the  means  and  agency  by  which  it 
is  produced,  and  the  evidences  by  which  we  may  judge  of 
its  reality.  It  is  a  subject  whose  importance  all  Christians 
acknowledge,  for  whatever  views  we  take  of  it,  as  theolo- 
gians, we  must  admit  that  in  practical  religion  every  thing 
depends  upon  its  application.  To  ask  who  is  regenerate  is 
to  ask  who  is  a  Christian.  To  become  regenerate  is  to 
become  a  Christian.  We  may  dispute  as  to  what  the  new 
birth  is,  but  we  cannot  dispute  the  Saviour's  words,  that 
"  unless  a  man  be  born  again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom 
of  God."  There  are  some  persons  who  suppose  that 
Unitarians  deny  this  doctrine.  But  there  could  not  be  a 
greater  mistake.  It  would  be  the  same  as  denying  that  a 
man  can  become  a  Christian,  or  that  there  is  any  real  dif- 
ference between  good  men  and  bad,  between  those  who 
stsrve  God  and  those  who  serve  him  not.     There  are  some 


128  KEGENERATION 

explanations  of  the  doctrine  which  we  reject,  because  they 
are  unsound  and  unscriptural,  but  we  do  not  reject  the  doc- 
trine itself. 

For  example,  we  do  not  believe  in  an  instantaneous  and 
miraculous  change,  by  virtue  of  which  he  who  is  at  one 
moment  totally  depraved  can  become  in  the  next  one  of 
God's  saints.  But  we  do  believe,  that  by  the  blessing  of 
God  a  radical  change  may  begin  at  any  time,  by  which  the 
direction  of  a  man's  life  may  be  changed  from  that  which 
'eads  downward  to  that  which  leads  upward. 

We  do  not  believe  that  this  change  will  always  be  ac- 
:,ompanied,  either  with  the  panic  of  an  agonized  conscience, 
or  the  ecstasies  of  rejoicing,  but  that  its  inward  experience 
will  be  different  in  different  individuals,  according  to  their 
various  temperament  and  education,  to  the  degrees  of  their 
guilt,  and  to  the  influences  under  which  they  have  been 
placed.  The  outward  evidences  of  the  change  will  also 
differ  in  an  equal  degree.  I  have  seen  men  at  a  camp- 
meeting  under  such  strong  excitement^  that  they  have  been 
tied,  hand  and  foot,  to  prevent  them  from  some  bodily  injury  ; 
others  pass  through  an  equally  strong  experience,  to  whom 
the  kingdom  of  God  comes  without  observation.  We  do 
not  deny  the  reality  of  the  change  effected  in  either  case. 
We  must  judge  of  them  both,  as  we  judge  of  the  tree,  by 
its  fruit.  We  give  our  preference  indeed  to  the  latter,  be- 
cause observation  leads  us  to  distrust  all  violent  excitements. 
There  is  danger  that  they  will  not  last,  and  that  the  spiritual 
fever  will  be  followed  by  a  corresponding  and  perhaps  fatal 
prostration.  This  is  particularly  true,  where  the  excitemen' 
is  produced  by  artificial  means,  by  the  sympathy  of  crowds 
and  the  appliances  of  fear.  At  such  times  men  are  car- 
ried beyond  their  own  convictions,  and  are  very  liable  to  be 
deceived  as  to  their  real  feelings.     The  resu\  very  often  is, 


REGENERATION.  129 

jiat  after  a  few  days  they  see  every  thing  m  a  different 
light,  and  sometimes  the  Scripture  is  fulfilled  in  them,  that 
the  last  stage  of  such  men  is  worse  than  the  first.  We 
have  greater  confidence  in  the  change  which  comes  through 
the  quietness  of  thought.  It  may  promise  less  at  first,  but 
will  accomplish  more  in  the  end.  It  may  be  accompanied 
with  less  of  the  rapture  of  religious  triumph,  but  it  is  more 
likely  to  bring  us  to  that  peace  which  passeth  all  under- 
standing. For  such  reasons,  we  do  not  enter  into  what  are 
called  "  revivals  of  religion,"  and  the  protracted  meetings 
by  which  they  are  generally  excited.  Our  observation  of 
them  has  not  been  favorable  to  their  permanent  usefulness. 
It  is  not  that  we  deny  the  change  of  heart  which  is  needed 
m  becoming  a  Christian,  nor  that  we  would  limit  the  action 
of  God's  spirit  in  producing  it.  We  may  rightly  pray  to 
him,  "  Revive  thy  work  in  the  midst  of  the  years";  and  in 
the  progress  of  every  religious  society,  as  in  the  experience 
of  every  individual,  there  will  be  times  of  awakening,  in 
which  the  lukewarm  become  zealous,  and  the  cold-hearted 
and  sinful  are  rebuked.  Such  seasons  of  refreshing,  when 
they  come  from  the  use  of  the  ordinary  Gospel  means,  are 
always  to  be  welcomed,  and  their  result  is  always  good. 
But  when  they  are  brought  on  almost  forcibly,  by  the  use 
of  what  we  may  call  religious  machinery,  it  is  quite  a  dif- 
ferent thing.  They  are  artificial  in  their  origin  and  unnatu- 
ral in  their  result.  Their  good  effect,  which  seems  at  first 
very  great,  is  seldom  permanent.  1  have  known  instances 
m  which,  out  of  a  hundred  converts,  less  than  one  tenth 
held  fast  to  their  profession  for  six  months.  In  such  cases 
the  evil  is  greater  than  the  good,  and  it  is  from  the  fear  of 
such  results  that  we  prefer  more  quiet  modes  of  pro- 
ceeding. 

Once  more :    we  believe  that  every  real  change  in  the 


130  RE  JENERATION. 

character  and  in  the  heart  must  be  begun,  contitiued,  anu 
ended  in  God.  It  is  he  -'  who  worketh  in  us  both  to  will 
and  to  do,  of  his  good  pleasure."  In  the  Christian  course 
from  the  very  first  to  the  last,  we  are  dependent  upon  him. 
As  in  the  natural  world,  the  seed  is  formed  by  his  creative 
power,  and  germinates  and  grows  up  and  is  developed  into 
a  plant  or  tree,  through  the  benign  influences  of  nature, 
which  are  only  another  name  for  the  Divine  working,  so  it 
is  in  the  human  soul  that  the  seed  of  righteousness  is  at 
first  planted,  and  is  developed  by  the  sweet  influences  of 
God's  grace.  With  this  difference,  however,  which  should 
be  carefully  remarked,  that  in  the  latter  case  the  soui 
must  acknowledge  the  working  of  God  and  feel  itself  sus- 
tained by  his  presence.  In  proportion  as  we  feel  our  de- 
pendence on  God,  we  become  strong.  If  we  rely  upon 
ourselves  alone,  we  become  weak.  We  are  never  so  much 
m  danger  of  falling,  as  when  we  boast  in  our  hearts  that 
we  stand  firmly.  It  is  thus  that  God  teaches  us,  by  the 
practical  experience  of  life,  that  we  depend  on  him,  that 
we  are  not  sufficient  to  ourselves. 

But  while  we  receive  this  as  the  Scriptural  doctrine  of 
God's  grace,  we  do  not  the  less  insist  upon  the  necessity 
of  our  own  working.  In  one  sense,  we  depend  for  the 
whole  work  of  our  salvation,  from  the  first  dawning  thought 
of  goodness  to  the  last  complete  triumph  of  Christian  faith, 
upon  the  awakening  and  saving  influences  of  God's  spirit* 
and  we  can  therefore  join  in  the  prayer  of  the  poet,  — 

"  Direct,  suggest,  control,  this  day, 
All  we  design  or  do  or  say." 

And  in  that  of  the  Psalmist  David,  "Create  in  me  a  clean 
heart,  O  God,  and  renew  a  right  spirit  within  me  ;"  for  it 
is  the  prayer  not  only   of  weakness,  but  of  faith,  and  to 


REGENERATION.  131 

every  sincere  Christian  it  will  surely  be  answerecf.  But  on 
the  other  hand  we  too  must  work ;  we  have  no  right  to 
expect  miracles  to  be  done  for  us.  We  have  no  right  to 
expect  that  the  spirit  of  God  will  come  to  us  unsought. 
God  helps  those  who  try  to  help  themselves.  He  will  not 
save  us  in  spite  of  ourselves.  It  is  of  those  who  are  striv- 
ing to  work  out  their  own  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling, 
that  the  Scripture  says,  '*  God  worketh  in  them  both  to  will 
and  to  do."  To  those  only  who  use  what  they  already 
have,  is  it  promised  that  more  will  be  given. 

Nor  can  we  separate  the  Divine  working  from  that  which 
we  call  the  natural  operation  of  our  own  minds,  and  the 
natural  influences  of  our  daily  life.  A  thought  of  righteous- 
ness comes  to  the  hardened  sinner,  he  scarcely  knows  how, 
nor  is  it  important  that  he  should  know.  It  is  of  God's 
sending,  whether  you  call  it  the  direct  suggestion  of  his 
Spirit  or  not.  It  is  an  angel  visitant,  and  if  cordially  re- 
ceived others  will  follow  in  its  train,  until  the  heart  becomes 
the  temple  of  the  living  God,  full  of  his  ministering  spirits. 
From  that  first  impulse  towards  goodness,  as  he  advances, 
step  by  step,  contending  against  sin,  reaching  towards 
heaven,  the  Christian  can  never  tell  exactly  how  much  de- 
pends upon  his  own  exertion,  and  how  much  upon  a  higher 
power.  He  knows  that  when  his  heart  is  full  of  prayer, 
he  progresses  most  rapidly ;  but  he  also  knows  that  a  bless- 
ing never  comes  upon  his  indolence.  He  finds  no  en- 
couragement to  wait  until  God  does  his  work,  but  no  sooner 
does  he  take  hold  of  it  than  he  feels  sure  that  God  is  help- 
ing him.  He  thus  feels  the  equal  necessity  of  his  own 
exertions  and  of  the  Divine  blessing,  and  is  kept  in  that 
healthy  progress  of  mind  and  character,  which  belongs  to 
the  true  Christian  life.  Such  we  think  is  the  wise  ordering 
of  God.     In  the  influences  of  his  Spirit  upon  the  soul  we 


132  REGENERATION. 

cannot  say,  "  Lo  here  !  or  Lo  there  !  "  "  he  cometh  down 
like  rain  upon  the  mown  grass,  as  showers  that  water  the 
earth,"  and  the  proof  of  his  coming  is  found  in  the  fruits 
of  'righteousness,  in  pure  and  holy  thoughts,  in  heavenly 
aspirings,  and  in  every  Christian  grace. 

It  is  supposed  by  many  persons,  that  the  doctrine  of  Re- 
generation depends  upon  what  are  called  the  doctrines  of 
Original  Sin  and  Total  Depravity.  This  is  a  mistake  which 
it  is  important  to  remove.  We  must  therefore  consider 
these  doctrines  for  a  few  moments  before  going  further. 
In  fact,  there  are  few  persons  who  explain  them  at  the 
present  day  in  the  same  manner  in  which  they  were 
taught  fifty  years  ago.  The  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  origi- 
nal sin  is,  that  in  the  fall  of  Adam  the  whole  human  race 
were  made  sinners ;  that  in  consequence  thereof,  sin  is 
imputed  to  every  human  being  at  his  birth,  in  such  a  sense 
that  he  is  under  the  wrath  of  God  and  is  subject  to  eternal 
damnation  ;  that  his  nature,  being  essentially  corrupt,  is 
capable  of  no  good  thing,  not  even  to  wish  or  pray  for 
good.  Its  best  actions  therefore  are  hateful  in  the  sight  of 
God,  and  absolute,  total  depravity  is  the  necessary  result  of^ 
its  development.  For  a  nature  such  as  this,  there  is  but 
one  hope  of  salvation,  which  is  in  the  miraculous  and  irre- 
sistible grace  of  God.  The  change  of  heart  is  therefore, 
according  to  this  view,  an  absolute  change  of  nature ,  it 
comes  not  because  of  a  man's  own  seeking,  but  irrespect 
ively  thereof.  Those  to  whom  it  comes  are  thereby  God's 
elect.  Those  to  whom  it  does  not  come  remain  under  the 
sentence  of  condemnation,  from  which  they  cannot  by  any 
means  escape. 

Such  is  the  theory  which  Calvin  taught.  But  I  think  very 
few  of  his  adherents  now  receive  it.  It  is  so  muzh  modi- 
fied, that,  even  when  the  same  words  are  used,  different 


REGENERATION.  133 

ideas  are  conveyed  By  original  sin,  the  majority  under- 
stand no  more  than  original  imperfection  ;  and  by  the  impu- 
tation of  Adam's  sin,  no  moie  than  the  evil  consequences 
which  the  child  inherits  from  his  parents,  in  an  impaired 
physical  and  mental  constitution.  In  this  sense,  we  believe 
in  original  sin.  We  are  certainly  born  imperfect,  with 
many  tendencies  to  evil.  These  tendencies  are  also,  to 
some  extent,  inherited.  In  this  sense,  the  sins  of  the  fa- 
ther may  be  said  to  be  visited  on  the  children,  as  I  have 
known  whole  families  to  bo  born  wiih  depraved  appetites, 
which  have  followed  them  to  their  graves.  But  if,  on  the 
one  side,  there  are  evil  tendencies,  there  are,  on  the  other, 
equally  strong  tendencies  to  good  ;  amiable  dispositions  and 
a  natural  love  of  truth  and  purity.  These  also  come  to  us 
in  part  as  our  birthright.  We  do  not  call  them  virtue  or 
religion,  nor  do  we  say  that  these  alone  make  us  acceptable 
to  God.  Nor,  on  the  other  hand,  do  we  say  that  the  evil 
tendencies  with  which  we  are  born  make  us  hateful  to  God. 
In  both  cases,  the  natural  constitution  of  our  minds,  together 
with  all  the  circumstances  of  our  birth  and  education,  will 
be  taken  into  account  by  a  just  and  merciful  God,  in  his 
final  judgment  of  us.  To  whom  much  is  given,  of  him 
much  will  be  required.  To  whom  little  is  given,  of  him 
little  will  be  required.  No  one  will  be  condemned  because 
of  the  sins  which  his  father  committed,  although  he  may 
suffer  in  consequence  of  them.  "  The  soul  that  sinneth,  it 
shall  die."  Such  is  the  theory  of  original  imperfection, 
which  is  sometimes  improperly  called  original  sin. 

With  regard  also  to  total  depravity,  most  persons  who  pro- 
fess to  believe  it  mean  nothing  more  than  this,  that  the  best 
actions  of  a  selfish  and  worldly  man  partake  of  his  selfish- 
ness and  worldliness ;  that  until  we  have  learned  to  deny 
ourselves  and  to  take  the  law  of  God  as  our  supreme  law, 
12 


134  REGENERATION. 

our  most  amiable  qualities  partake  of  the  character  of  sin 
In  such  a  sense,  therefore,  you  may  say  that  the  unregen- 
erate  man  is  totally  depraved,  because  there  is  no  part  of 
his  conduct  or  his  character  which  is  fully  conformed  to  the 
Divine  law.  The  pervading  principle  of  his  life  is  wrong, 
and,  in  this  sense,  all  is  wrong.  Change  that  pervading 
principle,  and  you  change  every  thing.  It  is  like  infusing 
healthy  blood  into  the  physical  frame.  It  will  gradually, 
but  certainly,  change  every  part  of  the  physical  and  men- 
tal constitution. 

We  shall  not  follow  this  train  of  thought  further.  What 
1  have  said  will  serve  my  purpose  to  show,  that,  while  the 
doctrines  in  question  continue  the  same  in  words,  they  may 
be  very  different  in  idea. 

The  truth  concerning  our  nature  by  birth,  and  the  spirit- 
ual condition  to  which  we  are  brought  by  regeneration,  or 
the  new  birth,  seems  to  be  this.  We  are  born  with  a  mixed 
constitution,  physical,  intellectual,  and  moral.  These,  as 
they  originally  came  from  the  creative  hand  of  God,  were 
pronounced  to  be  good.  The  moral  nature  is  the  highest, 
that  is  the  soul,  and  to  this'  the  physical  and  intellectual,  the 
body  and  the  mind,  should  minister.  But,  by  the  necessity 
of  the  case,  the  physical  is  developed  first,  "  the  first  man 
is  of  the  earth,  earthy."  Our  first  wants,  our  first  enjoy- 
ments and  sufferings,  are  purely  physical.  The  first  exer- 
cise of  the  faculty  of  thought  takes  that  direction.  Self- 
love,  which  is  needful  for  self-p/eservation,  is  thus  early 
developed.  Self-indulgence  in  what  is  pleasant,  and  angry 
resistance  to  what  is  unpleasant,  are  the  natural  conse- 
quences. All  this  is  not  sinful,  it  is  simply  of  the  earth, 
earthy.  It  is  our  physical  nature.  Gradually  the  higher 
nature  begins  to  appear.  The  sweet  affections  of  the 
child,  pure    and   truthful,   begin  to  expand.     A  sense  of 


REGENERATION.  135 

right,  of  justice,  and  of  truth,  gradually  shows  itself.  At 
first  very  weak,  but  also  very  correct,  for  the  instincts  of 
childhood  upon  all  moral  subjects  are  sure  to  be  right.  In 
the  progress  of  development,  the  intellect  adds  strength 
either  to  the  physical  or  moral  constitution,  according  to 
the  natural  temperament  and  the  circumstances  of  educa- 
tion and  example. 

The  period  when  moral  responsibility  begins  is  hard  to 
determine.  It  certainly  does  not  begin  until  there  is  a 
clear  perception  of  right  and  wrong,  and  a  choice  of  one  or 
the  other ;  but  whenever  h  begins,  the  child  is  conscious 
of  difficulties.  His  first  exercise,  as  a  moral  being,  is  a 
struggle,  a  conflict.  There  is  an  enemy  to  be  conquered. 
a  victory  to  be  won.  Conscience  claims  the  supremacy  ; 
it  says,  Thou  must,  or  Thou  must  not ;  but  the  body,  with 
its  wants  and  its  enjoyments,  resists  its  commands.  Reason 
pleads  for  the  right,  passion  and  appetite  for  the  wrong. 
It  is  the  struggle  of  life  commenced,  the  spirit  against  the 
flesh,  and  the  flesh  against  the  spirit.  The  result,  if  human 
weakness  ^receives  no  heavenly  aid,  is  but  too  evident.  The 
physical,  that  is  to  say  the  powers  of  the  flesh,  being  first 
developed,  is  strong  and  vigorous,  while  the  moral  has  but 
an  infant's  strength  and  soon  gives  way.  The  passions 
gain  strength  by  what  they  feed  on  ;  the  intellect  is  brutal- 
ized and  brought  into  their  service ;  the  conscience  is 
buried  under  the  accumulated  rubbish  of  sin. 

Even  in  Christian  lands,  and  under  the  influences  of 
Christian  education  and  Christian  example,  which  is  a 
strong  divine  helping  to  the  principle  of  right,  the  great 
majority  of  men  and  women,  when  they  come  to  the  age 
Df  mature  life,  find  that  the  work  of  moral  discipline  is  still 
to  be  accomplished.  There  is  a  difference  in  their  degrees 
of  sinfulness  ;   but  with  nine  oat  of  ten,  the  pervading  prin- 


136  REGENERATION. 

ciple  of  conduct  is  self-love,  or  self-indulgence,  or  worldly 
ambition.  In  nine  cases  out  of  ten,  therefore,  a  radical 
change  is  needed,  before  they  can  properly  be  called 
Christians.  I  call  it  a  radical  change,  for  if  you  change 
the  principle  of  life,  as  I  have  already  said,  you  change 
every  thing.  It  is  not  only  an  outward  change,  for  the  pro- 
prieties of  life  may  already  be  observed.  It  is  chiefly  an 
inward  change,  which  concerns  the  motives  and  the  affec- 
tions. In  many  instances  where  the  outward  conduct  contin* 
ues  the  same,  the  real  change  of  character  is  equally  great. 

I  have  said,  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten,  that  such  will  be 
the  result ;  perhaps  I  might  have  used  even  stronger  lan- 
guage, for  there  are  very  few  persons  who  are  not  under 
the  necessity,  sooner  or  later,  of  that  strong  moral  exercise, 
through  which,  by  the  blessing  of  God,  the  worldly  and 
selfish  heart  becomes  religious.  Sometimes  it  is  a  violent 
and  short  struggle,  sometimes  a  slow  and  laborious  self- 
discipline  ;  sometimes  we  can  tell  the  day  and  the  hour 
when  it  begins,  and  sometimes  we  almost  doubt  whether  it 
has  commenced  or  not,  until  it  is  accomplished.  But  with 
nearly  all,  in  some  way  or  other,  the  change  must  be 
accomplished  from  the  earthly  to  the  spiritual,  from  the 
worldly  to  the  religious,  from  the  selfish  to  the  self-deny- 
ing character,  after  we  have  come  to  the  years  of  con- 
scious self-direction. 

In  a  few  instances,  equally  rare  and  beautiful,  the  devel- 
opment of  our  nature  is  so  healthy,  that  the  soul,  almost 
from  the  first,  asserts  its  rightful  supremacy.  This  is 
sometimes  the  result  of  pure  Christian  influences,  the  wise 
training  of  parents,  the  example  of  good  and  pious  teachers, 
which  may  be  called  the  hunmi  agency  by  which  the  Di- 
vine Spirit  is  working.  Sometimes,  even  when  surrounded 
by  the  worst  influences  of  sin,  in  the  dens  of  iniquity,  or  in 


REGENERATION.  137 

the  high  places  of  worldliness,  the  child  is  seen  to  grow  uf 
with  almost  stainless  purity,  through  some  mysterious  guid- 
ing of  which  it  is  not  conscious,  but  which  leads  heaven- 
ward, as  by  an  angePs  hand.  In  such  cases  there  seems 
never  to  be  a  struggle  between  the  flesh  and  the  spirit. 
The  soul  grows  up  to  the  heavenly  life,  almost  as  the  seed 
grows  up  to  its  appointed  beauty.  Yet  I  believe  that,  even  in 
such  cases,  if  we  could  understand  the  full  working  of  the 
soul,  we  should  find  here,  as  elsewhere,  what  is  called  the 
new  birth,  which  is  the  passing  from  the  earthly  or  natural 
state  to  the  spiritual  or  heavenly.  It  may  take  place  very 
early  and  very  gradually,  but  1  think  that  it  is  not  the  less 
real.  The  life  of  the  spirit  is  not  that  to  which  we  are  first 
born,  but  the  life  of  the  flesh.  The  second  man,  and  not 
the  first,  is  the  Lord  from  heaven.  When  Christ  is  formed 
m  the  soul,  it  is  the  redemption  of  the  soul  from  the  natural 
earthly  influence.  If  it  is  eflected  before  that  influence  has 
brought  degradation,  the  thanksgiving  to  God  may  be 
greater,  but  it  is  not  less  a  redemption. 

Upon  this  subject,  however,  I  would  not  dispute.  Such 
instances  are  as  rare  as  they  are  blessed.  With  by  far  the 
greater  part  of  the  human  family,  the  experience  is  very 
different  and  far  more  painful.  We  find  ourselves  laden 
with  sins,  we  scarcely  know  how.  We  are  walking  in  a 
wrong  direction,  almost  before  we  have  thought  whither  the 
path  leads.  Our  first  serious  thoughts  of  heaven  are  awa- 
kened, by  our  seeing  that  our  faces  are  not  turned  heaven- 
ward. It  is  the  restlessness  of  the  soul  under  the  bondage 
of  sin,  that  arouses  us  to  assert  its  true  dignity.  Through 
some  human  agency,  or  through  the  working  of  our  own 
mmd,  God  speaks  to  us,  and  if  we  hearken,  the  conflict 
begins,  the  result  of  which  is  properly  called  a  deliverance 
and  a  victory. 

12* 


138  REGENERATION. 

Fiom  what  has  been  now  said,  although  in  a  desultory 
manner,  you  will  understand  my  views  upon  this  important 
topic,  the  doctrine  of  Regeneration.  By  this  new  birth,  we 
mean  a  change  from  the  carnal  to  the  spiritual ;  that  is,  not 
an  absolute  change  of  nature,  which  would  be  the  creation 
of  a  new  soul,  but  the  subjection  of  the  lower  principles  of 
our  nature,  which  are  of  the  flesh,  to  the  higher  principles, 
which  are  of  the  spirit.  It  is  a  change,  therefore,  in  the 
motives  and  the  affections,  that  is  a  change  of  heart.  It  is 
a  new  direction  given  both  to  the  inward  and  outward  life, 
and  the  whole  meaning  of  life  is  thereby  changed.  I  do 
not  mean  any  thing  mystical  or  mysterious  by  this ;  in  pro- 
portion as  we  become  religious  persons,  we  shall  under- 
stand it. 

Secondly :  It  is  a  change  needed  by  all.  Sooner  or 
later  it  must  be  experienced  by  all,  before  they  can  be 
called  the  followers  of  Christ.  For  we  are  not  born 
Christians.  Innocence,  or  freedom  from  actual  transgres- 
sion, is  the  utmost  we  can  claim,  which  is  a  very  different 
thing  from  moral  excellence  or  righteousness.  This  must 
come  from  the  discipline  of  life,  and  to  accomplish  it  is 
precisely  the  purpose  of  our  being  placed  in  the  present 
state  of  probation. 

Thirdly :  The  manner  and  process  of  this  change,  of 
this  spiritual  development  and  growth,  are  very  different  in 
different  individuals;  —  as  different  as  men's  natural  con- 
stitutions and  the  circumstances  under  which  they  are 
placed.  To  prescribe  an  invariable  rule  by  which  the 
spiritual  experience  of  all  shall  be  governed,  is  nothing  but 
religio  is  empiricism,  and  is  the  mark  of  a  narrow-minded 
teacher.  It  is  not  necessary  that  all  should  walk  in  the 
same  company  and  wear  the  same  badge,  to  be  followers 
of  the  same  Master. 


REGENERATION.  139 

Fourthly :  In  the  formation  of  our  reh'gious  character, 
which  is  our  Regeneration,  we  are  chiefly  indebted,  as  we 
are  in  every  thing,  to  the  Divine  guidance  and  help.  With- 
out God,  we  are  nothing  and  can  do  nothing.  But  we  too 
must  work.  His  working  is  through  our  working,  nor  can 
we,  generally  speaking,  separate  the  one  from  the  other. 
The  operation  of  the  Divine  Spirit  is  real  and  effectual : 
but  as  "  the  wind  bloweth  where  it  listeth,  and  we  hear  the 
sound  thereof,  but  cannot  tell  whence  it  cometh  or  whither 
it  goeth,  so  is  every  one  born  of  the  Spirit." 

Finally:  The  proof  of  Regeneration  is  in  the  life.  **Let 
no  man  deceive  you ;  he  that  doeth  righteousness  is 
righteous,  even  as  he  is  righteous."  (1  John  iii.  7.)  It  is 
not  in  professions,  nor  in  ecstasies,  nor  in  flaming  zeal, 
much  less  in  the  self-righteous  condemnation  of  others ; 
but  in  a  life  of  genuine  goodness,  purity,  and  truth.  The 
evidence  of  the  Christian  spirit  is  in  the  Christian  character. 
By  their  fruits  shall  ye  know  them.  "  Pure  religion  and 
undefiled  before  God  the  Father  is  this,  To  visit  the  father- 
.ess  and  widows  in  their  affliction,  and  to  keep  ourselves 
jnspotted  from  the  world." 


RETRIBUTION. 


THE  SriNO  OF  DF.ATH  IS  SIN  ;  AND  THE  STRENGTH  OP  SIN  18 
THE  LAW.  BUT  THANKS  BE  TO  GOD,  WHICH  GIVETH  US  THB 
yiCTORT  THROUGH  OUR  LORD  JESUS  CHRIST.  THEREFORE,  MY 
BELOVED  BRETHREN,  BE  TE  STEADFAST,  UNMOVABLE,  ALWAYS 
ABOUNDING  IN  THE  WORK  OF  THE  LORD,  FORASMUCH  AS  YB 
KNOW     THAT     YOUR     LABOR    IS     NOT     IN    VAIN     IN     THE     LORD.  — 

1  Cor.  XV.  56-58. 

The  subject  of  my  present  discourse  is  the  doctrine  of 
Future  Retribution.  If  nothing  had  been  said  in  the  Bible 
directly  concerning  it,  I  think  that  it  might  be  inferred  from 
the  manner  in  which  the  sacred  writers  speak  of  sin  as  the 
great  evil,  and  of  salvation  from  it  as  the  great  redemption. 
The  whole  Gospel  dispensation  implies  that  there  is  a  terri- 
ble danger  to  which  we  are  exposed  through  sin,  and  a  glo- 
rious deliverance  which  is  offered  through  Jesus  Christ. 
"  Who  shall  deliver  me,"  said  the  Apostle,  "  from  the  body 
of  this  death  ?  I  thank  God,  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord. 
There  is,  therefore,  now  no  condemnation  to  them  who  are 
in  Christ  Jesus.  For  the  law  of  the  spirit  of  life  in  him, 
hath  made  me  free  from  the  law  of  sin  and  death."  This 
is  the  uniform  tone  in  which  the  Scriptures  speak  of  sin 
and  redemption.  I  cannot  understand  it,  unless  the  conse- 
quences of  sin  extend  to  the  future  life. 


142  RETRIBUTION. 

If  they  were  confined  to  this  world,  sin  would  be  com* 
paratively  a  small  evil.  If  they  were  found  only  in  the  oc- 
casional loss  of  friends  and  of  health,  or  even  if  they  ex- 
tended so  far  as  to  make  the  whole  of  the  present  life  miser- 
able,  yet  if  death  were  sure  to  bring  the  end  of  all,  nay,  it 
it  were  in  our  power  to  seek  death  ourselves,  and  thereby 
to  open  for  the  weary  soul  the  never-ending  bliss  of  heaven, 
we  might  look  upon  sin  itself  with  feelings  comparatively 
calm  and  quiet.  It  would  be  sad  to  see  the  degradation  of 
those  who  barter  their  present  happiness  for  debasing  pleas- 
ures. It  would  be  sad  to  think  of  the  years  which  they 
waste,  of  the  shame  which  they  bring  upon  themselves  and 
their  kindred.  But  if  we  could  say  to  them,  "The  degra- 
dation shall  soon  be  changed  to  infinite  glory,  the  shame 
shall  soon  pass  into  rejoicing,  the  fire  which  conscience  has 
kindled  shall  soon  be  quenched  in  the  stream  which  sepa- 
rates time  from  eternity,"  the  remaining  evil  might  be  easily 
borne.  If  we  could  say  to  him  who  is  now  striving  to  make 
himself  a  brute,  and  who  succeeds  in  making  himself  a 
fiend,  "  Do  your  very  worst ;  drink  of  the  cup  of  iniquity 
to  its  dregs ;  bury  your  soul  in  earthly  lusts,  until  none  but 
the  eye  of  God  can  discern  that  a  soul  is  there  ;  yet,  when 
a  few  short  years  are  past,  thou  shalt  lie  down  in  the  sleep 
of  death,  from  which  thou  shalt  awake  an  angel  of  God 
pure  and  spotless,"  —  our  feelings  with  regard  to  sin  and  the 
sinner  would  be  entirely  changed.  Sin  would  still  be  an 
evil,  but  how  much  less  than  it  now  appears.  It  would 
stand  among  other  evils,  like  ignorance,  or  poverty ;  a 
serious  evil,  greater  perhaps  than  the  rest,  and  carefully  lO 
be  avoided,  but  at  the  worst  only  temporary,  and  soon  to  be 
followed  by  infinite  good.  How  different  are  our  feelings 
when  we  think  of  it  as  the  beginning  here  of  what  must 
contiiiue  hereafter;  when  we  think  that  a  sinful  life  works 


RETRIBUTION.  143 

!n  the  soul  a  character  which  remains  after  the  body  dies  • 
when  we  think  of  that  poor,  degraded  spirit,  passing  from 
a  life  of  shame  and  guilt  into  a  life  where  it  is  incapable  of 
receiving  any  reward  except  "  the  things  done  in  the  body  "  ; 
when  we  think  that  he  who  has  already  forfeited  all  the 
best  happiness  of  this  life,  has  nothing  to  look  forward  to, 
except  to  reap  that  which  he  has  sown,  the  fearful  looking 
for  of  judgment ! 

I  would  not  underrate  the  evil  of  sin  in  its  present  de» 
velopment.  The  wasted  features  of  the  drunkard,  the  cold 
and  malignant  look  of  the  gambler,  the  mean  and  tricky 
glance  of  the  thief,  the  sensual  expression  of  the  licentious, 
the  bloodthirsty  eye  of  the  murderer,  —  these  are  terrible  to 
look  upon.  We  shrink  from  them  with  loathing  and  dis- 
gust. The  way  of  the  transgressor  is  hard  ;  his  sins  pun- 
ish themselves,  and  the  baseness  to  which  they  bring  him 
is  fearful.  But  our  horror  is  increased,  while  at  the  same 
time  we  are  filled  with  unutterable  pity,  when  we  are 
taught  that  this  is  but  the  beginning  of  sorrow.  O  my 
God,  what  must  be  the  awaking  from  such  a  sleep  as  this  ! 
with  every  faculty  of  thought  degraded  ;  with  every  desire 
made  corrupt ;  with  the  tastes  perverted  from  good  and 
fixed  upon  evil ;  with  selfishness  as  the  only  rule  of  action 
and  sin  the  only  object  of  pursuit ;  with  not  even  enough  of 
goodness  left  to  make  him  repent  of  the  wrong  done,  and 
throw  himself,  with  cries  for  pardon,  upon  the  mercies  ot 
his  God  ! 

Being  such  a  one,  when  he  passes  from  this  life  to  the 
future,  where  shall  the  sinner  appear  ?  What  has  he  to  do 
with  the  pure  and  good  ?  What  enjoyment  can  he  find  in 
Holiness  and  truth  ?  How  can  he  enter  upon  the  service 
of  God,  that  heavenly  service,  which  begins  in  self-renun- 
ciation, and  is  perfected  in  love  ?     Place  him  among  the 


144  RETRIBUTION 

just  made  perfect,  who  hunger  and  thirst  after  righteous- 
ness, among  the  pure  in  heart,  the  peacemakers,  and  what 
companionship  would  he  find  ?  Alas  !  it  is  not  the  suffering 
which  sin  brings  with  it  now,  although  its  present  retribu- 
tion is  severe,  —  it  is  not  this,  but  the  ruin  which  it  works 
in  the  soul  itself,  that  makes  it  so  terrible.  The  present 
evil  soon  must  cease,  but  the  ruin  remains. 

It  will  be  seen  from  my  manner  of  speaking,  that  the  ret- 
ribution in  which  I  believe  is  both  present  and  future.  It 
is  the  execution,  now  and  hereafter,  of  the  laws  under  which 
we  live  :  laws  which  were  made  in  wisdom,  and  which  are 
executed  with  apparent  sternness,  but  in  real  love.  Many 
persons  take  for  granted  that  by  proving  a  law  of  retiibu- 
tion  in  this  life,  under  which  we  suffer  for  wrong-doing, 
they  disprove  the  existence  of  such  a  law  in  the  world  to 
come.  I  think  they  are  in  error.  The  existence  of  such  a 
law  here  is  a  proof  that  it  will  continue  there.  It  is  the 
same  soul  that  passes  from  time  to  eternity,  the  same  God 
reigns  there  and  here,  the  same  great  purposes  are  to  be 
accomplished,  and  we  have  reason  to  believe  that  the  same 
principles  of  moral  government  will  continue.  I  would  be. 
at  pains,  therefore,  in  proving  the  doctrine  of  future  retribu- 
tion, to  make  the  fact  of  present  retribution  prominent  and 
clear.  By  doing  this,  we  shall  at  the  same  time  prove  the 
existence  of  a  general  law,  under  which  we  now  live,  and 
which  we  have  no  right  to  suppose  will  be  abrogated  by 
death  ;  and  we  shall  also  see  that  the  operation  of  this  law 
is  here  so  imperfect,  so  often  interrupted  by  causes  which 
must  evidently  cease  with  the  present  life,  that  there  is  still 
stronger  reason  to  believe  that,  in  a  higher  sphere  of  action, 
the  essential  laws  of  our  being  will  find  their  more  per- 
fect development. 

Retribution  here  is  of  several  kinds.     First  is  that  which 


RETRIBUTION.  145 

we  suffer,  not  as  human  beings,  but  in  common  with  all 
the  animal  creation.  We  may  call  it  natural  retribu- 
tion. There  are  certain  laws,  the  observance  of  which  is 
essential  to  continued  life  and  health.  Food  of  a  proper 
kind  and  in  sufficient  quantity  must  be  provided  ;  that 
which  is  unwholesome  must  be  avoided ;  the  strength  must 
be  matured  by  exercise,  and  not  over-exerted  ;  and  other 
laws  of  our  physical  nature  must  be  observed,  or  evil  con« 
sequences  result.  There  are  similar  conditions  on  which 
the  healthful  development  of  the  mind  depends.  If  it  is 
brought  too  early  or  too  strongly  into  action,  if  it  is  devel 
oped  too  rapidly  and  without  regard  to  the  equal  claims  of 
the  body,  not  only  is  the  bodily  health  lost,  but  the  mind  also 
too  often  becomes  unsound,  the  powers  of  thought  weak- 
ened, and  the  balance  of  judgment  destroyed.  Or  if  the 
mind  is  left  indolent,  if  it  is  suffered  to  remain  torpid  or  un- 
educated, the  physical  nature  is  brutalized  and  its  real  vigor 
ultimately  lost.  There  are  laws,  therefore,  which  belong  to 
the  body,  and  there  are  laws  upon  which  the  healthful  con- 
nection between  the  body  and  the  mind  depends.  Their 
violation  must  always  bring  loss  and  suffering,  to  a  greater 
or  less  degree,  for  wherever  law  exists,  penalty  for  its 
violation  must  be  annexed. 

But  of  these  laws  we  must  observe  two  things,  impor- 
tant to  our  present  subject ;  first,  the  penalty  annexed  is 
just  the  same,  whether  their  violation  is  attended  with  guilt 
or  not.  It  may  be  voluntary  or  involuntary,  yet  the  suffer- 
ing will  be  the  same.  It  may  come  in  the  performance  of 
unavoidable  duty,  yet  its  severity  is  not  relaxed.  You  may 
rush  into  a  burning  house,  to  rescue  a  child  from  death, 
yet  you  will  come  out  with  a  scarred  and  tortured  body,  as 
much  as  if  you  had  exposed  yourself  to  the  same  danger 
in  wantonness,  or  in  the  commission  of  crime.  If  you  are 
13 


146  RETRIBUTION. 

SO  ignorant  of  the  laws  of  physical  health  as  ti  spend  all 
your  days  in  the  closet,  and  rob  the  nights  of  sleep,  cheat- 
ing the  body  of  needful  exercise  and  wholesome  food,  stim- 
ulating the  brain  with  hurtful  drugs  which  destroy  the 
nerves,  the  consequence  will  be  equally  certain  and  severe, 
whether  the  folly  has  been  committed  in  the  pursuit  of 
knowledge,  of  pleasure,  or  of  gain.  If  you  over-exert 
yDur  strength,  though  it  may  be  in  support  of  a  widowed 
mother,  in  the  care  of  the  sick,  in  works  of  philanthropy, 
or  in  the  service  of  religion,  yet  the  consequence  will  be 
an  invalid  frame  and  premature  death,  just  as  certainly  aa 
f  the  same  over-exertion  had  been  induced  by  avarice  or 
ambition.  Unnatural  and  long-continued  excitement  will 
produce  insanity,  whether  it  is  in  the  church,  in  the  ball- 
room, or  at  the  gambling-table. 

These  are  facts  which,  however  startling,  cannot  be  de- 
nied. The  retribution,  therefore,  of  which  we  now  speak,  is 
not  moral  retribution.  It  comes  not  in  punishment  of  gi>ilt 
nor  in  reward  of  virtue.  It  may  indeed  be  mingled  with 
moral  retribution,  and  may  often  seem  to  come  as  the  pun- 
ishment of  guilt.  But  in  itself  considered  it  has  no  regard 
to  merit  or  demerit.  Ignorance  will  not  exempt  us  from 
it;  the  best  intention  will  not  enable  us  to  avoid  it. 

We  observe,  secondly,  that,  so  far  as  human  judgment 
3an  discern,  this  retribution  is  not  impartial.  Some  men 
are  endowed  with  a  physical  constitution  so  strong  and 
elastic,  that  the  utmost  irregularities  seem  to  do  them  no 
harm  ;  others  are  so  weak,  that  the  slightest  departure  from 
prudence  brings  suffering  or  death.  The  same  degree  ol 
indulgence  which,  in  one  family,  will  make  children  vic- 
tims of  disease,  will,  in  another,  be  consistent  with  their 
vigorous  and  healthy  growth.  And  so  in  all  the  depart- 
ments of  life,  the  bad  results,  under  the  law  we  now  con 


RETRIBUTION.  1-1*7 

siJer,  not  only  cone  without  regard  to  the  intention  of  the 
offender,  but,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  bear  no  equa\  pro- 
portion to  the  offence  itself.  I  have  no  doubt,  that,  if  we 
were  able  to  take  a  view  of  the  whole,  it  would  seem  other- 
wise ;  for  the  circumstances  which  produce  these  apparent 
inequalities  are,  perhaps,  themselves  the  result  of  previ- 
ous action  of  the  same  laws.  The  frail  constitution  may  be 
the  result  of  some  violation  of  physical  law  by  our  parents, 
or  by  our  ancestry  a  hundred  years  ago.  The  causes, 
which  in  one  family  produce  disease  and  in  another  do  no 
harm,  seem  to  us  the  same,  but,  through  some  influence 
unknown  to  us,  may  be  entirely  different.  Still,  so  far 
as  moral  government  is  concerned,  the  effect  upon  indi- 
viduals is  the  same.  The  retribution  is  not  impartial.  It 
comes  upon  us  like  blows  struck  in  the  dark.  The  com- 
paratively guilty  escape,  the  comparatively  innocent  suffer. 
It  may  serve  under  our  present  subject  as  an  illustration  of 
a  general  law,  but  it  is  not  the  kind  of  retribution  needed 
for  moral  discipline. 

There  is  a  second  kind  of  retribution  which  we  may  call 
social.  It  consists  in  the  loss  of  reputation,  of  friends,  of  so- 
cial position,  and  of  every  thing  outward  which  makes  life 
pleasant  or  desirable.  The  drunkard  becomes  an  object 
of  disgust,  and  the  finger  of  scorn  is  pointed  at  him.  The 
licentious  man  is  marked  as  one  to  be  avoided.  The  thief 
is  branded  with  a  harsh  epithet  and  immured  in  the  walls 
of  a  prison.  Public  opinion,  the  usages  of  society,  the 
criminal  code,  the  laws  of  friendship  and  kindred,  all 
minister  to  this  social  retribution  of  wrong-doing.  If  the 
usages  of  society  were  always  correct,  if  human  laws  were 
perfect  and  perfectly  administered,  if  public  opinion  were 
sound  and  in  accordance  with  Christian  principles,  this  ret- 
ribution would  go  far  to  answer  all  the  purposes  of  moral 


148  RETRIBITTIO>. 

discipline.  But  unfortunately,  nothing  can  be  more  nn- 
eqaal,  more  arbitrary,  or  unjust.  Taking  the  world  as  it 
is,  looking  at  the  facts  as  they  really  are,  the  social  ret- 
ribution visited  upon  crime,  so  far  from  answering  the 
purpose  of  moral  discipline,  is  one  of  the  greatest  obstacles 
in  its  way.  Society  does  not  punish  sin  according  to  its 
real  enormity,  but  to  the  circumstances  under  which  it  is 
committed.  This  is  done,  not  by  any  rule  of  justice,  but  in 
the  most  partial  and  tyrannical  manner.  Those  who  have 
the  least  excuse  for  crime  are  most  likely  to  escape  punish- 
ment, while  those  whose  temptations  were  so  great  that  re- 
sistance was  almost  impossible,  are  punished  to  the  utmost 
extent  of  the  law,  and  exposed  to  the  worst  censure  of  pub- 
lic opinion.  Children,  who  grow  up  in  some  den  of  iniqui- 
ty, whose  parents  praise  them  when  they  steal  and  punish 
them  when  they  are  honest,  who  are  educated  by  all  the 
influences  around  them  to  become  the  pests  of  society, 
when  they  are  a  little  older  commit  some  felony  or  some 
act  of  violence,  and  for  a  theft  of  a  few  dollars  are  sent  to 
the  penitentiary  for  two  or  three  years,  from  which  they 
come  out,  with  almost  no  possibility  before  them  but  a  life 
of  wickedness  and  shame.  How  different  is  the  sentence 
which  society  passes  upon  the  man  who,  in  his  childhood, 
had  every  advantage  of  Christian  education  and  good  ex- 
ample, and  who  has  grown  up  among  influences  which 
make  virtue  easy  and  remove  the  worst  temptations  of  vice  ! 
Such  a  man,  when  guilty,  we  do  not  now  say  of  theft,  but 
of  peculation  to  a  hundred  times  the  amount,  under  cir- 
cumstances, perhaps,  where  there  is  the  most  inexcusable 
breach  of  trust,  and  the  most  heartless  wrong  committed 
afijainst  his  best  friends,  will  escape  comparatively  unpun- 
'shcd.  There  may  be  a  temporary  loss  of  credit,  but  if  he 
has  been  successful  in  his  villany,  it  all  comes  right  with 


RETRIBUTION.  149 

mm  v^ory  soon ;  he  is  again  numbered  among  the  respecta- 
ble men  of  the  community,  and  his  children  grow  up  in  the 
best  society. 

We  might  give  a  thousand  illustrations  of  the  same  sort. 
The  gambler,  who  stakes  a  few  dollars  on  a  throw  and 
whose  sphere  of  action  is  low  and  vulgar,  is  called  by  his 
right  name  and  regarded  with  the  contempt  which  he  de- 
serves. But  he  who  is  able  to  stake  thousands,  and  whose 
gambling-table  stands  in  the  carpeted  room  of  a  gentle- 
man's residence,  may  be  guilty  of  the  same  crime  without 
losing  caste  and  almost  without  censure.  Intemperance 
in  the  rich  is  a  veiy  different  thing  from  intemperance 
in  the  poor.  And  so  it  happens  that  the  advantages  of  so- 
cial position,  which  make  the  sin  itself  greater,  shield  the 
sinner  from  the  punishment  he  deserves.  Society  is  full  of 
such  injustice.  The  tribunal  of  public  opinion  is- one  where 
a  bribe  is  never  refused. 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  neither  natural  nor  social 
retribution  is  sufficient  for  the  purposes  of  moral  discipline. 
We  need  a  retribution  which  is  certain,  impartial,  and  in 
exact  proportion  to  the  guilt  committed.  And  this  leads  us 
to  consider  a  third  kind  of  retribution,  which,  beginning  in 
this  world,  will  be  perfected  in  the  world  to  come,  —  the 
retribution  of  conscience.  It  certainly  begins  here.  We 
never  commit  sin  intentionally  without  feeling  rebuked  for  it, 
and  sometimes  the  punishment  which  a  sensitive  conscience 
inflicts  is  so  severe,  that  it  seems  beyond  the  offence  com- 
mitted. 

There  are  some  who  believe  that  this  retribution  of  con- 
science is  perfect  and  complete  in  the  present  life  ;  that 
every  sin  is  certainly  punished,  and  in  exact  proportion  to 
the  degree  of  guilt ;  but  I  cannot  agree  with  them.  Nei- 
ther my  experience  nor  my  observation  confirms  it.  I  ana 
13* 


150  RETRIBUTION. 

willing  to  admit  that  the  tendency  of  this  retribution  is  to 
become  more  and  more  just.  If  all  adventitious  circum- 
stances were  removed,  if  conscience  had  a  fair  and  open 
field  of  action,  its  decisions  would  be  just  and  in  all  cases 
governed  by  the  offence.  But  this  I  believe  rarely  takes 
place  in  this  world.  Practically  speakmg,  its  decisions  are 
continually  warped  and  its  sentence  is  continually  avoided ; 
so  that,  although  it  gives  plain  indication  of  what  it  may 
become  in  the  future  life,  it  is  at  present  an  uncertain  and 
insufficient  tribunal.  For  in  the  first  place,  it  is  more  or 
less  quick  and  severe  in  its  action,  according  to  the  physi- 
cal constitution.  The  man  of  sensitive  nerves  and  deli- 
cate frame  has  a  conscience  so  tender,  that  every  slight 
departure  from  duty  gives  him  pain,  and  often  it  becomes 
so  morbid,  that  he  is  kept  in  constant  misery,  where  no 
wrong  has  been  intended.  Others,  naturally  of  a  coarser 
temperament,  have  no  desire  to  be  better  than  their  neigh- 
bors, and  live  in  the  daily  commission  of  faults,  without  the 
least  self-reproach. 

Again,  the  circumstance  of  failure  or  success  has  a  strange 
effect  upon  the  decisions  of  conscience,  although  it  can  have 
none  upon  the  act  itself.  A  course  of  iniquity  which  hap- 
pens to  end  in  good  results,  fails  to  excite  those  severe  com- 
punctions which  would  have  arisen  from  the  same  crime  if 
unsuccessful.  A  fraud  which  makes  me  rich,  does  not 
trouble  me  so  much  as  the  same  fraud,  when  it  makes  me 
poor.  Only  in  the  latter  case  does  conscience  see  and  de- 
clare the  truth. 

In  the  same  manner,  the  concealment  of  sin  often  keeps 
the  conscience  comparatively  quiet,  through  long  years,  even 
to  the  end  of  life  ;  when,  if  it  had  been  revealed  to  the  world, 
and  the  scorn  of  good  men  and  the  estrangement  of  friends 
had  been  thereby  visited  upon  us,  conscionce  would  at  the 


RETRIBUTION.  151 

Hjime  time  nave  awaked,  like  a  wild  beast  from  his  laii,  to 
rend  our  hearts  in  pieces.  It  seems  as  if  the  veil  of  secrecy 
hides  the  fault,  not  only  from  the  eyes  of  others,  but  from 
our  own.  Discovery  is  needed  to  show  us  what  we  are. 
Yet  it  is  evident  that  continued  concealment  sometimes  m- 
creases  the  sin  by  the  added  guilt  of  hypocrisy. 

Add  to  these  things  the  complication  which  comes  from 
the  unequal  working  of  the  natural  and  social  retribution 
to  which  we  have  already  referred.  The  decisions  of  con- 
science are  contmually  overborne  by  influences  beyond  its 
control.  We  easily  reconcile  ourselves  to  sins  which  are 
countenanced  in  society.  The  whisperings  of  conscience 
are  hushed,  and  we  forget  to  condemn  ourselves  for  doing 
what  others  do.  The  individual  conscience  rarely  speaks, 
but  instead  of  it  a  conventional  or  average  conscience, 
which  is  far  less  sensitive  and  correct.  The  external  re- 
wards of  life  come  with  so  unequal  regard  to  our  real  deserv- 
ing, we  are  so  often  sufferers  in  ourselves  and  in  our  families, 
for  actions  well  intended  and  in  themselves  right,  that  it  re- 
quires a  degree  of  faithfulness  which  few  men  exercise,  to 
keep  the  conscience  itself  from  being  hardened  or  perverted. 

It  is  easy  to  say  that  the  consciousness  of  right  rewards 
us  sufficiently,  let  the  loss  and  suffering  be  what  they  may ; 
but  to  make  it  so  requires  a  degree  of  moral  elevation  sel- 
dom attained.  If  we  analyze  our  feelings  in  times  of  such 
experience,  we  shall  find  that  it  is  not  the  present  award  of 
conscience  which  upholds  us,  so  much  as  the  belief  that  its 
sentence  will  be  confirmed  hereafter.  We  rest  patiently 
under  the  loss,  we  cheerfully  endure  the  pain,  because  we 
are  assured  that  the  victory  now  accomplished  is  an  eternal 
victory,  and  that  the  light  affliction,  which  is  but  for  the 
moment,  is  working  for  us  a  far  more  exceeding,  even  an 
eterna   weight  of  glory.     This  demands  our  carelul  consid 


152  RETRIBUTION. 

eration.  The  healthy  action  of  conscience  in  the  present 
life  depends  upon  our  belief  that  the  consequences  of  sin 
extend  to  the  future.  It  is  this  belief  which  shows  the  enor- 
mity of  sin  and  the  real  injury  it  does  to  the  soul.  I  do  not 
advocate  a  slavish  fear  of  punishment,  but  I  believe  that 
the  retribution  which  conscience  now  imposes  is  derived,  in 
a  great  part,  from  the  knowledge  that  it  will  go  on  to  its 
perfect  fulfilment  beyond  the  grave.  It  is,  therefore,  although 
a  present  retribution,  chiefly  the  anticipation  of  the  future. 

There  is  another  kind  of  moral  retribution,  which  comes 
from  the  application  of  the  general  law  to  our  moral  nature. 
It  consists  in  the  formation  of  character.  By  our  manner 
of  life,  the  soul  is  moulded  into  certain  shapes  of  beauty 
or  deformity ;  its  capacities  enlarged  or  contracted ;  its 
perceptions  quickened  or  made  dull ;  its  tastes  purified  or 
debased  ;  its  inward  life  made  heavenly  or  vile.  We  there- 
fore suffer  retribution  by  what  we  are.  The  present  char- 
acter for  good  or  evil  is  retributive  of  the  past.  Each  day 
lays  up  for  the  morrow  a  retribution  which  is  absolutely  sure 
to  come.  It  is  also  progressive  and  cumulative,  for  the 
present  character  is  the  result  of  all  that  has  gone  before. 
In  this  manner,  as  we  enter  upon  each  successive  stage  of 
life,  from  childhood  to  youth,  from  youth  to  manhood,  from 
manhood  to  mature  and  advancing  age,  we  carry  with  us 
the  results  of  the  past,  —  an  actual  retribution,  in  the  mora? 
habits,  in  the  greater  or  less  development  of  the  mind,  in 
the  actual,  although  acquired,  nature  of  the  soul. 

This  also,  like  the  direct  retribution  of  conscience,  would 
be  in  exact  accordance  with  justice,  were  there  no  disturb- 
injT  influences.  But  in  fact,  we  are  not  the  absolute  framers 
of  our  own  character.  The  moral  position  in  which  we 
stand  is  not  altogether  the  result  of  our  own  merit  or  de 
merit.     We  are   moulded   as   much   by  the   inf  lences  of 


RETRIBUTION.  153 

education  ind  early  ftxample,  of  country  and  cUmatt  and 
other  external  forces,  as  by  our  own  exertions.  Our  present 
character,  therefore,  being  the  consequence  of  all  that  has 
gone  before,  may  be  considered  under  the  natural  law  as 
an  exact  retribution  of  the  past.  But  under  the  moral  law, 
which  has  regard  only  to  moral  desert,  it  is  very  far  from 
being  a  just  or  impartial  award. 

I  am  well  aware  that  considerations  such  as  I  have  now 
brought  forward  lead  us  into  a  labyrinth  of  thought,  from 
which  we  cannot  alone  find  a  return.  If  we  imagine  our- 
selves to  be  placed  upon  the  seat  of  judgment,  to  pass  sen- 
tence upon  each  individual  according  to  his  real  desert,  we 
must  acknowledge  that  to  our  finite  faculties  the  task  would 
be  impossible.  It  is  a  work  which  belongs  only  to  an  infi- 
nite mind.  God  alone  can  discern  the  real  truth  in  every 
leart.  He  alone  can  untangle  the  perplexed  thread  of  life, 
so  that  each  one  shall  feel  that  he  is  fairly  dealt  with,  ac- 
cording to  the  deeds  done  in  the  body,  whether  they  be  good 
or  evil.  For  this  reason,  there  are  no  circumstances  under 
which  we  should  dare  to  anticipate  the  judgment  of  God. 
As  the  poor  widow,  who  cast  in  one  mite,  was  said  to  have 
given  more  than  all  the  rest,  because  it  was  more  in  propor- 
tion to  her  ability,  so  may  it  often  be  in  God's  judgment, 
when  our  full  account  is  rendered.  The  seeming  saint  and 
the  despised  sinner  may  then  change  places ;  '•'-  the  last 
shall  be  the  first,  and  the  first  last."  It  is  for  God  alone  to 
administer  and  execute  the  laws  which  God  alone  has  made. 
But  although  it  would  be  arrogant  in  us  to  assume  his  place, 
as  many  do,  in  pronouncing  sentence  upon  the  offender,  we 
may  yet  believe  that  in  the  infinite  wisdom  of  God  a  just 
sentence  shall  be  pronoimced.  We  may  perceive  that 
there  are  principles  of  justice,  applicable  to  every  case, 
although  we  are  not  competent  to  app.)  them.     We  may 


154  RETRIBUTION. 

rest  satisfied  in  believing  that  God  is  greater  than  the  heart 
and  knoweth  all  things.  He  who  is  the  Judge  of  all  the 
earth  will  do  only  that  which  is  right. 

From  the  course  of  thought  which  we  have  now  followed, 
as  the  result  of  experience  and  observation,  we  arrive  at 
these  conclusions.  First,  that  the  great  law  of  our  lives 
is  the  law  of  retribution.  The  present  is  answering  for 
the  past,  the  future  must  answer  for  the  present.  God's 
laws  cannot  be  violated  with  impunity.  That  which  we 
sow,  we  also  reap.  This,  in  its  various  developments,  is  the 
primal,  essential  law  of  our  being.  Secondly,  considered 
as  a  moral  retribution,  the  action  of  this  great  law  is,  in 
this  world,  imperfect  and  unequal.  The  disturbing  influen- 
ces are  so  many,  that,  although  we  may  discern  a  tendency 
towards  justice,  impartial  justice  is  not  here  attained.  The 
punishment  of  sin  is  not  according  to  the  degree  of  sin, 
but  is  made  greater  or  less  by  a  thousand  circumstances, 
which  do  not  affect  the  degree  of  guilt.  Thirdly,  both  of 
these  conclusions  lead  us  to  a  third,  namely,  that  the  same 
general  law  of  retribution,  which  seems  to  be  the  condition 
of  life  itself,  shall  continue  in  the  soul  as  long  as  the  soul 
lives.  There  is  nothing  to  indicate  that  it  belongs  to  this 
world  only.  Let  the  fact  of  a  future  life  be  admitted,  and 
it  seems  to  follow,  as  a  matter  of  necessity,  that  this  law 
shall  continue.  If  so,  it  will  become,  as  a  moral  retribution, 
just  and  equal.  The  disturbing  influences  will  cease.  They 
belong  only  to  a  state  of  probation,  the  infancy  of  the  soul's 
life,  and  will  have  no  place  there.  Here  we  see  through 
a  glass  darkly,  there  face  to  face.  The  principles  of  God's 
moral  government,  which  are  here  but  imperfectly  devel- 
oped, will  there  obtain  a  full  and  perfect  administration. 
Such  is  the  logical  conclusion  with  regard  to  the  future 
from  the  premises  gi  /en  here. 


HETRIBUTION.  155 

It  seems  to  me,  therefore,  that  when  we  come  to  the  Gos- 
pfil,  as  the  revelation  of  God,  we  do  not  so  much  need  that 
the  law  of  retribution  should  be  announced  or  confirmed,  as 
that  it  should  be  restrained.  It  is  a  law  so  absolute,  so  rad- 
ical, so  unsparing,  so  fearful,  that  we  can  find  no  escape 
from  it.  Under  the  light  of  reason  alone,  scarcely  any 
hope  is  given  ;  we  find  no  shelter  from  the  impending  wrath. 
He  who  believes  in  a  future  life,  and  who  sees  the  stern, 
relentless  law  under  which  the  soul  now  lives,  —  a  law 
whose  present  execution  is  stayed,  but  still  threatens  to 
come  when  the  soul  is  exposed  defenceless  to  its  power,  — 
does  not  need  to  be  told  of  the  terrors  of  the  Lord,  so 
much  as  of  his  forbearance  and  loving-kindness  and  tender 
mercy.  We  need  to  be  taught,  not  so  much  that  destruction 
is  impending,  as  that  a  way  of  escape  is  provided.  I  con- 
fess that,  as  a  believer  in  eternity,  if  reason  were  my  only 
guide,  I  should  shudder  whenever  I  think  of  death.  Then 
indeed  it  would  be  a  "  fearful  thing  to  fall  into  the  hands 
of  the  living  God."  A  dim  and  uncertain  hope  of  his  mer- 
cy might  come,  to  save  us  from  absolute  despair,  but  the 
sins  that  rise  up  in  judgment  against  us  are  so  many,  that 
we  need  an  assurance  of  pardon,  almost  before  we  dare  to 
hope.  It  is  this  assurance  that  the  Gospel  gives.  It  teaches 
that  through  the  redemption  in  Jesus  Christ,  a  limit  to  that 
fearful  law  of  retribution  is  found.  There  is  forgiveness 
whh  God.  He  will  not  exact  the  payment  of  the  uttermost 
farthing,  but  will  freely  forgive  us  "  all  that  debt."  To  make 
this  known  was  the  great  object  of  Christ's  coming.  As  it 
is  written,  "  the  law  came  by  Moses,  but  grace  and  truth 
by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  It  is  the  Gospel  of  redemption, 
not  of  condemnation.  It  came  to  inspire  hope,  not  to  increase 
despair.  It  changes  the  law  of  retribution,  under  whicl"  we 
reap  only  that  which  we  sow,  to  a  law  of  reconciliation, 


156  RETRIBUTION. 

ander  which  all  estrangement  from  God,  the  wt.  rst  penalty 
of  sin,  is  removed,  and  the  returning  prodigal  is  restored  to 
the  arms  of  a  father's  love. 

But  to  whom  is  this  promise  given  ?  Tcf  whom  is  this 
pardon  offered  ?  Even  in  his  mercy  God  is  just,  and  while 
a  way  of  escape  for  the  sinner  is  provided,  his  condemna- 
tion upon  sin  remains. 

There  is  no  passage  in  the  Bible,  so  far  as  I  know,  which 
offers  pardon,  except  on  condition  of  repentance  and  a  re- 
newed life.  If  there  is  any  exception  to  this,  it  is  where 
faith  in  Christ  is  declared  the  sole  condition  of  eternal 
life.  But  those  who  understand  the  meaning  of  faith,  in  the 
New  Testament,  know  that  it  is  a  state  of  mind  and  charac- 
ter, which  includes  repentance  and  self-consecration  to  God. 
The  third  chapter  of  the  Gospel  of  John  insists  equally  upon 
the  necessity  of  the  new  birth  and  upon  the  supreme  impor- 
tance of  faith  in  Christ.  They  both  impl^  the  same  spirit- 
ual experience  which  is  the  condition  on  which  forgiveness 
is  promised. 

I  state  this,  therefore,  as  the  First  Scriptural  argument  for 
the  continuance  of  the  law  of  retribution  in  the  future  life ; 
namely,  that  although  the  great  object  of  the  Gospel  is  to 
reveal  the  mercy  of  God  and  his  willingness  to  forgive,  y»- 
we  are  encouraged  to  hope  for  pardon  only  upon  the  cond* 
tion  which  I  have  named.    The  inference  is  most  plain,  tha 
to   those    who   continue    in  sin  forgiveness  is  not  offered 
They  abide  under  the  law  of  condemnation    from    which 
they  refuse  to  escape. 

Another  Scriptural  argument  to  the  same  effect  is  found 
in  the  manner  in  which  the  doctrine  of  future  retribution  is 
often  taken  for  granted,  as  the  basis  on  which  instruction  is 
given.  When  the  Saviour  says,  "  He  that  loses  his  life  for 
my  sake  shall  fini  it,"  we  can  give  no  full  meaning  to  his 


RETRIBUTION.  151 

words,  except  on  the  supposition  that,  although  we  lose 
every  thing  in  this  life,  we  gain  more  in  the  future.  If  that 
future  were  the  same  to  us,  whether  we  are  faithful  or  un- 
faithful here,  his  words  would  scarcely  have  been  true. 
When  the  Scripture  says,  "  Be  thou  faithful  unto  death,  and 
I  will  give  thee  a  crown  of  life,"  we  are  plainly  taught  that 
to  those  who  are  unfaithful  that  crown  is  not  offered.  In 
the  chapter  from  which  my  text  is  taken,  the  object  of 
the  Apostle  is  simply  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  a  future  life. 
He  says  nothing  directly  of  retribution,  but  declares  that  all 
of  us  shall  be  raised  again  by  the  power  of  God  in  such  a 
body  as  may  please  him.  Yet  he  concludes  his  discourse 
with  the  words,  "  Therefore  be  ye  steadfast,  unmovable,  al- 
ways abounding  in  the  work  of  the  Lord,  forasmuch  as  ye 
know  that  your  labor  is  not  in  vain  in  the  Lord."  There- 
fore .''  why  ?  Why  is  the  fact  of  a  future  life  an  argument 
for  our  being  steadfast  and  unmovable  ?  Because  the  future 
must  answer  for  the  present.  Because  the  pure  in  heart 
alone  can  see  God.  Because  we  have  no  right  to  hope  for 
acceptance,  unless  we  can  comply  with  the  conditions  on 
which  it  is  offered.  Believing  this,  we  know  that  our  labor 
is  not  in  vain  in  the  Lord.  But  if  good  and  bad  shall  ap- 
pear before  him,  in  equal  glory  and  in  equal  favor,  the 
Apostle's  words  seem  to  me  without  force,  and  the  motive 
which  he  urges  for  our  faithfulness  is  taken  away. 

We  might  give  many  other  instances  like  this.  Even 
the  prodigal  son  is  required  to  return,  with  the  words  of 
confession  on  his  lips  and  with  a  heart  full  of  penitence,  be- 
fore his  father  comes  out  to  meet  him.  A  broad  distinc- 
tion is  made  between  the  good  and  bad,  the  penitent  and 
impenitent,  whenever  a  future  life  is  mentioned,  and  it  is 
taken  for  granted  that  it  will  continue  there.  I  attach  more 
importance  to  this  form  of  argument  than  I  do  to  the  literal 
14 


158  retr:bution. 

interpretation  of  words,  and  think  that  it  is  much  less  likely 
to  mislead  us.  The  plainest  language  may  be  explained 
away,  and  we  may  be  deceived  as  to  its  meaning.  But  this 
argument  does  not  depend  on  verbal  criticism.  When  the 
doctrine  of  a  future  life  is  used  as  a  motive  for  faithfulness 
and  obedience,  it  is  an  evident  declaration,  that  that  un- 
known world  is  not  the  same  to  the  good  and  bad,  but  that 
the  future  must  answer  for  the  present. 

Thirdly,  there  are,  however,  many  direct  assertions  of  the 
same  truth.     The  ingenuity  of  criticism  may  throw  a  doubt 
over  soma  of  them,  but  they  are  so  many,  and  their  obvious 
interpretation  seems  to  me  so  evidently  their  true  meaning, 
that,  although  J  would  not  impute  intentional  unfairness  to 
those  who  explain  them  away,  I  cannot  help  feeling  sur 
prised  at  the  boldness  of  their  undertaking.     "  Except  ycu^ 
righteousness  shall  exceed  that  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisee? 
ye  shall  in  no  case  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven."    "  T 
ye  forgive  not  men  their  trespasses,  neither  will  your  Fa 
ther   in   heaven    forgive    your   trespasses."      "  Not   every 
one  that  saith  unto  me.  Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  but  he  who  doeth  the  will  of  my  Father 
which  is  in  heaven."     "  Fear  not  them  which  kill  the  body, 
but  are  not  able  to  kill  the  soul,  but  rather  fear  him  who  is 
able  to  destroy  both  soul  and  body  in  hell."      "  For   we 
must  all  appear,"  said  the  Apostle  Paul,  "before  the  judg- 
ment-seat of  Christ,  that  every  one  may  receive  the  things 
done  in  his  body,  according  to  that  he  hath  done,  whether 
it  be  good  or  bad."     "  Know  this,  that  no  unclean  person 
hath  any  inheritance  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ  and  of  God." 
Again,  after  enumerating  the  works  of  the  flesh,  he  says 
"Of  the  which  I  tell  you  before,  as  I  have  also  told  you  in 
times  past,  that  they  who  do  such  things  shall  not  inherit  the 
kingdom  of  God."     For  "God  will  render  to  every  man 


RETRIBUTION.  159 

according  to  his  deeds ;  to  them  who,  by  patient  continu- 
ance in  well-doing,  seek  for  glory  and  honor  and  immortal- 
ity, eternal  life.  But  unto  them  that  are  contentious  and 
do  not  obey  the  truth,  but  obey  unrighteousness,  indignation 
and  wrath,  tribulation  and  anguish,  upon  every  soul  of  man 
that  doelh  evil,  of  the  Jew  first  and  also  of  the  Gentile  ;  but 
glory,  honor,  and  peace  to  every  man  that  worketh  good,  to 
the  Jew  first,  and  also  to  the  Gentile  ;  for  there  is  no  respect 
of  persons  with  God  "  "  For  the  wages  of  sin  is  death,  but 
the  gift  of  God  is  eternal  life  through  Jesus  Christ  our 
Lord." 

I  do  not  see  how  this  language  can  be  fairly  explained, 
except  as  teaching  the  doctrine  of  future  retribution  for  sin. 
So  far  as  I  can  understand  their  words,  this  is  what  the 
Saviour  and  his  Apostles  meant  to  teach,  and  therefore  I 
believe  it. 

It  is  important  for  me  here  to  refer  more  particularly  to 
the  Scripture  use  of  the  word  Hell,  because  it  not  only  af- 
fords an  argument  for  the  doctrine  to  be  proved,  but  also 
removes  some  of  the  most  popular  objections  brought 
against  it.  In  the  Old  Testament  the  word,  properly  speak- 
ing, never  occurs,  for  although  we  find  it  in  our  translation, 
the  original  word  in  Hebrew  is  Sheol,  which  corresponds 
with  the  Greek  word  Hades,  and  means  the  place  of  de- 
parted spirits,  or  the  grave.  See  Gen.  xxxvii.  35 ;  xlii. 
38;  where  h  is  so  translated,  and  we  have  the  authority 
of  the  Septuagint  for  the  same  translation  in  all  cases. 

In  the  common  version  of  the  New  Testament,  it  occurs 
twenty  times.  In  ten  of  which  the  Greek  word  is  Hades, 
and  should  have  been  accordingly  translated.  See  Luke 
xvi.  23 ;  Acts  ii.  31 ;  and  elsewhere.  In  the  other  ten 
passages  where  the  word  occurs,  the  original  is  not  Hades, 
but  Gehenna,  by  looking  at  which  we  shall   understand 


160  RETRIBUTION. 

most  of  the  language  applied  by  Scriptun  to  the  punish 
ment  of  the  wicked.  It  is  a  Hebrew  word  properly  signi- 
fying the  valley  of  Hinnom,  a  beautiful  val  ey  near  Jerusa 
lem,  by  the  brook  Kidron,  where  Solomon  at  the  time  oi 
his  apostasy  from  God  set  up  a  brazen  image  of  Moloch, 
before  which  the  idolatrous  Jews  offered,  not  only  the  usual 
sacrifices,  but  even  their  own  children.  1  Kings  xi.  7 ; 
2  Chron.  xxviii.  3.  This  valley  was  called  by  the  prophet 
Jeremiah,  Tophet,  Jer.  vii.  31,  32,  from  a  word  signify- 
ing Tympanum,  because  in  those  sacrifices  the  priests  beat 
violently  the  Tympana,  lest  the  shrieks  of  the  burning  chil- 
dren should  be  heard  by  the  worshippers.  When  these 
horrible  rites  were  abolished  by  Josias,  2  Kings  xxiii.  10, 
and  the  Jews  were  reclaimed  to  the  worship  of  God,  they 
detested  this  valley,  the  scene  of  their  guilt,  so  much,  that 
they  made  it  the  receptacle,  not  only  of  all  the  filth  of  the 
city,  but  of  dead  animals  and  of  the  bodies  of  executed 
criminals  ;  and  to  prevent  the  pollution  of  the  air  from 
this  mass  of  decayed  matter,  fires  were  kept  incessantly 
burning,  night  and  day,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of 
the  year.  Hence,  the  valley  of  Hinnom  or  Gehenna  soon 
passed  into  a  proverb  or  common  expression  for  any  severe 
punishment,  and  especially  for  any  disgraceful  kind  of 
death,  and  ultimately  was  applied  to  the  miserable  condition 
of  those  who,  in  the  future  life,  suffer  the  agonies  of  guilt; 
so  that,  in  the  time  of  Christ,  one  of  the  common  meanings 
of  Gehenna  was  what  we  understand  by  the  word  Hell.* 
This,  however,  was  not  its  only   use,  and  therefore,  in 


*  "  The  word  Gehenna  is  used   in  this  way  (viz.  for   the   place  of 
pimishmont  beyond  the  grave)  very  frequently  in  Oriental  writers,  as 
far  as  India.     Compare  Wetstein's  New  Testament,  at  Matt,  v   22^ 
-Jahn's  Archaology,  §  411. 


RETRIBUTION.  161 

reading  the  New  Testament,  we  must  b(5  guided  by  the 
context  to  determine  the  meaning  in  each  case.  But  in 
several  of  the  passages  it  undoubtedly  refers  to  the  doom  ot 
the  wicked  ;  as  in  the  text  already  quoted,  "  Fea*  him  who 
is  able  to  destroy  both  soul  and  body  in  hell,"  Matt.  x.  28, 
any  other  construction  of  which  seems  to  me  very  forced 
and  unnatural. 

This  word  Gehenna,  derived  as  I  have  shown  it  to  be, 
but  transferred  from  its  original  meaning  and  applied  to 
express  figuratively  the  condition  of  the  wicked,  contains 
in  itself  the  germ  and  explanation  of  all  the  various  terms 
^'hich  the  Scriptures  use  to  describe  future  punishment. 
To  call  the  abode  of  the  condemned  Gehenna,  to  a  Jewish 
(;ar  included  the  fire  which  is  never  quenched,  and  the  un- 
dying worm,  and  the  lake  of  fire  burning  with  brimstone 
These  particulars  were  only  the  completion  of  the  first  idea. 
To  us  they  seem  to  add  a  great  deal  to  the  simple  term 
Gehenna,  but  to  a  Jew  that  word  embraced  within  itself  all 
that  is  horrible  and  loathsome,  all  that  is  disgraceful  and 
revolting,  all  that  is  agonizing,  in  ignominious  punishment 
and  death.  To  the  application  of  this  term  to  the  place 
of  punishment,  we  may  therefore  with  certainty  attribute 
those  figurative  expressions,  in  which  it  is  spoken  of  as  a 
place  of  darkness  and  fierce  burning  and  torture.  All  these 
expressions  are  figures  derived  from  that  awful  valley, 
whose  name  was  borrowed  to  describe  the  state  of  being 
we  call  Hell. 

I  call  them  figures,  in  which  probably  few  persons  will 
disagree  with  me.  The  believers  in  a  hell  of  literal  fire 
and  brimstone  are  fast  passing  away.  It  is  an  idea  too 
gross,  too  shocking,  to  be  long  retained  by  a  civilized  and 
educated  people.  There  is  some.hing  so  like  savage  cru- 
elt)  in  the  thought  of  casting  a  living  being  into  eternal 
14* 


162  RETRIBUTION. 

flames,  to  live  for  ever  the  prey  of  devouring  but  never 
destroying  fire,  that  we  instinctively  shrink  from  it,  as  un- 
worthy of  a  good  and  wise  God.  It  is  astonishing  to  me 
that  for  so  long  a  time  men  clung  to  this  literal  language 
and  insisted  upon  the  existence  of  the  lake  of  fire  and 
brimstone,  in  which  the  body  is  tormented  ;  and  that  even 
now,  the  favorite  mode  of  bringing  men  to  God  is  by  hold- 
ing up  a  picture  of  exquisitely  contrived  torture,  to  scare 
their  imaginations  and  frighten  them  out  of  sin.  It  is  called 
preaching  the  terrors  of  the  Lord.  But  I  do  not  believe 
that  God  means  to  arm  those  who  preach  his  word  with  a 
whip  of  scorpions  by  which  to  drive  men  to  heaven.  He 
has  given  us  no  authority  to  represent  him  as  a  cruel,  un- 
feeling, relentless  being,  who  looks  with  complacency  upon 
the  miserable  victims  of  ceaseless  burning.  The  effect  of 
such  representations  is  to  create  distrust  of  all  letribution. 
It  becomes  associated  with  so  much  that  is  horrible  and 
disgusting,  it  is  made  to  appear  so  unlike  that  treatment 
which  we  have  a  right  to  expect  from  a  just  and  merciful 
God,  that  we  turn  our  minds  away  from  it  and  refuse  belief 
in  the  truth  itself. 

But  let  me  not  be  misunderstood.  I  would  not  lessen  the 
fear  which  sin  brings  to  the  guilty  man.  It  cannot  be  too 
great,  so  long  as  it  is  calm  and  rational,  arising  from  our 
knowledge  of  the  ruin  which  sin  brings  upon  the  soul  now, 
and  the  dread  of  what  it  may  do  hereafter.  The  terms 
used  by  the  Scripture,  though  strongly  figurative,  are  not 
unmeaning  words.  We  may  divest  ourselves  of  the  horror 
which  their  literal  interpretation  would  convey,  but  we  can- 
not set  them  aside.  The  Saviour,  in  adopting  as  the  ex- 
pression for  the  punishment  of  the  wicked  a  word  so  full 
of  terror  as  the  valley  of  Hinnom,  took  the  surest  way  ol 
declaring  that  the  sorrow  of  the  sinful  soul  hereafter  is  be 
vend  the  power  of  tame  words  to  describe. 


RETRIBUTION.  .      163 

Figurative  language  is  used  to  convey  greater  strength 
and  intensity  of  meaning.  Are  we  yet  so  ignorant  as  not 
to  know,  so  brutish  as  not  to  understand,  that  there  is  no 
torture  of  these  frail  sinews,  no  agony  which  can  be 
brought  on  this  crumbling  body,  so  dreadful  as  the  rising 
of  an  abused  conscience  to  assert  its  stern  dominion  over 
the  guilty  soul.  There  are  hundreds  of  instances  in  this 
world,  where  the  perpetrators  of  heinous  crimes  have  fled 
to  the  punishment  of  the  dungeon  and  the  gallows,  as  if  to 
a  mother's  arms,  because  they  could  no  longer  bear  the 
secret  lashing  of  their  conscience.  And,  on  the  other  hand, 
there  are  those  who  so  value  the  peace  of  mind  which  a 
conscience  void  of  offence  brings,  that  they  would  not  bar- 
ter it  for  all  earthly  good,  nor  lose  it  to  avoid  the  worst  and 
longest  torture  which  the  body  is  able  to  endure.  There  is 
a  story  of  an  English  martyr,  who,  when  bound  to  the 
stake,  held  his  right  hand  in  the  fire  until  it  was  burned  off, 
declaring  that  the  hand  which  had  signed  his  recantation 
should  suffer  first.  The  pain  of  his  body  was  nothing  com- 
pared with  the  anguish  of  his  mind. 

Such  things  go  far  to  explain  the  figurative  language  of 
the  Scripture.  The  stings  of  guilt  are  not  easily  to  be 
borne.  Who  has  not  felt  enough  in  his  own  heart  to  know 
this  ?  If  we  wished  to  picture  to  ourselves  the  real  climax 
of  suffering,  it  would  be  to  place  the  soul,  not  in  outward 
fire,  but  in  the  midst  of  beauty  aid  external  delight,  with 
this  curse  upon  it,  that  neither  Jay  nor  night  should  the 
serpent  teeth  of  remorse  cease  to  gnaw  and  devour. 
That  curse  would  convert  all  things  into  instruments  o. 
torture,  and  outward  flames  would  not  be  wanting  to  in- 
crease the  woe. 

The  principal  argument  against  the  doctrine  of  future 
punishment  is  founded  upon  mistaken  ideas  of  God's  be- 


164     ,  RETRIBUTION. 

nevolen».e.  If  he  is  a  good  being,  —  it  is  urged,  —  if  he  is 
our  Heavenly  Father,  how  is  it  possible  that  such  dreadful 
suffering  jan  be  in  store  for  any  of  his  creatures  ? 

There  are  some  theories  of  future  punishment,  as  we 
have  already  seen,  against  which  this  objection  may  be- 
fairly  brought.  When  God  is  represented  as  a  vindictive 
being,  who  for  his  own  glory  appoints  a  large  part  of  his 
human  family  to  the  endurance  of  eternal  and  hopeless 
suffering,  in  punishment  for  sins  committed  in  these  few 
years  of  mortal  life,  we  cannot  reconcile  it  with  his  good- 
ness and  his  love.  I  cannot  believe  that  any  part  of  his 
creatures  are  subject  to  a  destiny  so  terrible  as  this.  But 
on  the  other  hand,  we  should  remember  that  our  knowledge 
of  the  Divine  attributes,  and  of  the  real  claims  of  justice 
and  mercy,  is  very  limited.  God  seeth  not  as  man  seeth, 
for  he  sees  the  whole  and  man  only  a  part.  It  may  here- 
after appear  that  many  things  which  seem  to  us  inconsist- 
ent with  God's  love,  are  in  fact  its  most  perfect  exercise. 

The  goodness  of  God,  according  to  the  teaching  of 
Scripture  and  of  enlightened  reason,  is  not  the  goodness 
of  indulgence  and  weakness.  It  is  that  of  a  wise  Father, 
who  seeks  the  real  good  of  his  children.  Which  one  of 
us,  who  is  a  parent,  would  not  consent  to  the  infliction  of 
the  severest  pain  for  months  and  years  upon  his  child,  if  it 
were  needful  to  save  him  from  drunkenness  or  dishonesty  ? 
What  degree  of  suffering  would  not  be  considered  a  bless 
ing,  in  the  accomplishment  of  a  work  like  this  ?  And  so, 
in  the  dealings  of  our  Heavenly  Father  towards  us.  Even 
in  this  world,  we  see  many  instances  in  which  the  Divine 
love  does  not  shrink  from  the  infliction  of  long-continued 
and  terrible  suffering,  as  the  punishment  of  sin,  or  for  the 
purification  of  the  soul.  Sometimes  we  can  see  the  reason 
of  such  inflictions  ;  sometimes  they  are  so  veiled  in  mys- 


RETRIBUTION.  165 

tery  that  we  can  explain  them  only  by  saying,  that  in  the 
future  world  what  is  now  dark  will  be  made  clear.  In 
such  cases,  however,  we  do  not  thmk  of  disputing  the 
Divine  benevolence,  but  say  that  there  are  undoubtedly 
sufficient  reasons  for  whatever  suffering  may  come,  and 
that  it  is  intended  for  the  good  of  those  who  bear  it.  Why 
should  not  the  same  faith  in  Divine  goodness  extend  to  the 
future  world  ?  The  real  life  of  the  soul  can  be  found  only 
in  purity  and  truth,  and  whatever  degree  of  suffering  may 
be  needful,  either  in  this  world  or  in  the  world  to  come,  for 
our  education  therein,  should  be  considered  as  a  proof  of 
the  highest  love.  If  the  way  to  goodness  lies  through  suf- 
fering and  pain,  it  is  the  part  of  kindness  to  lead  us  there. 
If  it  is  true  that  the  soul  shall  live  for  ever,  and  is  capable 
of  the  highest  exaltation  through  holiness  and  the  lowest 
degradation  through  sin  ;  if  its  dignity  and  true  happiness 
can  be  found  only  in  voluntary  obedience  to  the  will  of 
God,  —  then  we  can  understand  how  the  paternal  love  of 
God  may  subject  us  to  a  law  of  retribution,  which  seems 
stern  and  terrible,  but  which  is  the  chastening  of  a  Father's 
hand. 

But  it  will  be  asked.  How  is  such  a  theory  as  this  consist- 
ent with  the  doctrine  of  eternal  punishment  ?  If  the  suf- 
fering is  inflicted  for  the  sake  of  him  who  suffers,  must  it 
not  have  an  end  }  Must  not  a  day  come  for  the  final  res- 
toration of  all .?  And  if  so,  what  does  the  Scripture  mean 
when  it  speaks  of  "  endless  punishment,"  and  "  the  fire 
that  never  dies  "  }  I  would  answer  these  questions  with 
diffidence,  and  do  not  seek  to  be  wise  above  what  is 
written. 

There  are  certainly  some  passages  of  Scripture  which 
seem  to  imply  that  the  time  will  come,  when  all  resistance 
JO  the  power  of  God  shall  cease,  and  all  souls  be  brought 


166  EETKIBUTIOIS'. 

under  subjection  to  the  word  of  Christ ;  a  subjection  which 
cannot  be  perfect,  except  through  willing  obedience.  Noi 
is  the  use  of  the  word  "eternal,"  with  reference  to  future 
suffering,  an  absolute  contradiction  of  this  view  ;  for  it  can 
be  plainly  shown  that  that  word,  and  others  like  it,  are  fre- 
quently used  in  the  Bible  with  reference  to  limited  duration 
It  is  almost  certain,  indeed,  that  there  was  no  word  in  the 
Hebrew  or  Greek  language,  which  conveyed  to  those  who 
used  it  the  idea  which  we  now  conceive  of  absolute  eternity. 
But  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  also  true  that  the  stronges. 
words  which  those  languages  afford  were  applied  to  future 
punishment,  and  are  the  same  which  are  applied  to  the 
promises  of  future  happiness. 

Again,  although  there  are  some  hints  given  of  a  final 
restoration  of  all  things,  and  although  our  belief  in  the 
paternal  goodness  of  God  seems  to  lead  to  the  same  result, 
yet  there  are  obvious  difficulties  in  the  way.  By  the  nature 
of  the  soul,  its  return  to  goodness  must  be  voluntary.  It 
cannot  be  compelled,  even  for  its  own  benefit,  without  a 
destruction  of  its  best  capacities.  The  same  voluntary 
resistance  to  God  which  is  begun  here,  may  therefore  con- 
tmue  through  unknown  ages,  and  we  have  no  right  to  ex- 
pect that  God  will  ever  impose  upon  us  a  necessity  of  being 
good.  It  is  therefore  a  fearful  risk  which  we  run,  in  suffer- 
ing ourselves  to  become  more  and  more  hardened  in  sin. 
We  do  not  know  how  far  the  capacity  of  goodness  may 
die.  We  do  not  know  but  that  we  may  separate  ourselves 
so  far  from  God,  as  to  make  our  return  impossible.  Such 
thoughts  are  well  calculated  to  awaken  fear  and  trembling. 
The  immortal  soul  is  not  to  be  trifled  with,  and  those  who 
bury  it  under  sin  are  inc  ,rring  a  risk,  greater  perhaps  than 
we  can  understand. 

Yet  my  own  disposition  inclines  to  hope.     I  cannot  help 


RETRIBUTION.  16*« 

believing  that  God  in  his  infinite  wisdom  and  goodness  will 
find  a  way  of  return  for  all,  without  violation  of  the  laws 
by  which  the  soul  lives.  At  all  events,  we  may  be  sure 
that  the  punishment  which  he  inflicts  will  never  be  vindic- 
tive. He  will  never  forget  a  Father's  love  in  the  severity 
of  his  judgment.  No  one  of  his  creatures  will  ever  be  be- 
yond *he  reach  of  his  infinite  pity. 

In  entertaining  this  hope,  however,  we  do  not  assert  that 
the  consequences  of  long-continued  sin,  to  those  who  slight 
the  offers  of  mercy  made  to  us  here,  will  ever  completely 
cease.  A  wasted  life  may  leave,  and  it  is  reasonable  to 
suppose  will  leave,  an  ineradicable  stain  upon  the  soul.  Our 
capacity  of  happiness  may  be  thereby  for  ever  lessened. 
Even  if  restored  to  the  favor  of  God,  and  to  a  measure  o' 
happiness  which  fills  our  heart  with  gratitude  to  him,  we 
may  for  ever  feel  that  an  irreparable  loss  has  been  sus- 
tained. For  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  all  who  are 
happy  m  the  world  to  come  enjoy  an  equal  degree  of  bliss. 
We  may  therefore  see  that  there  is  a  sense  in  which  the 
consequences  of  a  sinful  life  may  be  an  eternal  retribution, 
without  violence  to  God's  goodness  and  mercy. 

But  I  never  engage  in  speculations  such  as  these,  without 
feeling  how  completely  they  are  beyond  my  reach.  They 
give  me  little  satisfaction  or  concern,  and  I  have  now  en- 
tered upon  them  more  for  the  sake  of  frankness  than  any 
thing  else.  The  Scriptures  teach  that  forgiveness  of  sin 
is  freely  offered  to  all  who  comply  with  the  conditions  of 
the  Gospel  of  Christ ;  that  to  those  who  will  not  comply 
with  such  conditions,  but  continue  in  a  sinful  and  impenitent 
life,  a  just  and  severe  retribution  is  appointed  in  the  future 
world ;  that  the  Saviour  to  whom  all  judgment  is  com- 
mitted, is  the  same  who  died  for  us ;  and  that  the  God  from 
whom  all  judgment  comes,  is  our  Heavenly  Father      Thus 


168  RETRIBUTION. 

far  the  instruction  is  plain,  and  to  my  mind  unquestionablt* 
I  do  not  seek  to  go  beyond  it. 

There  are  many  questions  which  we  naturally  ask,  but 
to  which  the  Scripture  gives  no  complete  answer.  When 
the  disciples  inquired,  "  Are  there  few  that  be  saved  ?  " 
Jesus  said,  "  Strive  ye  to  enter  in  at  the  strait  gate  "  ; 
and  this  is  to  all  of  us  the  only  practical  and  needful  reply. 
The  secrets  of  the  unknown  world  are  but  imperfectly  re- 
veah^d.  but  we  know  enough  for  our  present  guidance, 
enough  to  inspire  hope  and  to  awaken  fear.  The  hope 
rests  upon  God's  mercy,  the  fear  looks  to  his  justice ;  but 
ihey  unite  to  lead  us  in  the  paths  of  righteousness,  for  the 
.nercy  and  the  justice  of  God  are  alike  inseparable  from  a 
Father's  love.  "Therefore,  my  beloved  brethren,  be  ye 
steadfast,  unmovable,  always  abounding  in  the  work  of  the 
Lord,  forasmuch  as  ye  know  that  yogir  labor  is  not  in 
vam  m  the  Lord." 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  01094  1252 


Date  Due 

x->          -- 

^HpQI^iMIK 

ipP' 

.t^mm^wmm 

f) 

/ 


